falhnP 

<!** 


Gninr  OF 
Miss   Sue   Dunbar 


University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


APOLOGY 


FOR    THE 


I    B    L    E 


IN   A 


SERIES   OF  LETTERS, 


ADDRESSED   TO 


THOMAS  PAINE, 

Author  of  a  book  entitled 

The  Acs  of  REASON,   PART   the  SECOND, 

i 

BEING   AN  INVESTIGATION  OF 

TRUE  AND  OF  FABULOUS  THEOLOGY.  ' 


O   JT\    ~\T        _      —         —     - 


Lord  Bifhop  of  Landaff,  and  Regius  Prbfcffor  o 
P  in  the  Univerfity  of  Cambridge, 


PHILADELPHIA  : 


Second  and  Chelnut  Streets,  by 


JAS5 

8 


LETTER     L 

S  I  R, 


X  HAVE  lately  met  with  a  hook  of  your's, 
entitled— -THE  AGE  OF  REASON,  part  the  fe- 
cond,  being  an  inveftigation  of  true  and  of  fabu- 
lous theology  ; — and  I  think  it  not  inconfiftent 
with  my  ftation,  and  the  duty  I  owe  to  fociety, 
to  trouble  you  and  the  world  withfome  obfer- 
vat  ions  on  fo  extraordinary  a  performance. 
Extraordinary  I  efteem  it  ;  not  from  any 
novelty  in  the  objections  which  you  have  pro- 
duced againft  revealed  religion,  (for  I  find  little 
or  no  novelty  in  them,)  but  from  the  zeal  with 
which  you  labour  to  diffeminate  vpur  OT->> 
nions,  and  from  the  confidence  wi 
you  efteem  them  true.  You  pcrcci , » 
that  I  give  you  credit  for  your  fin 
much  foever  I  may^«ieftign  your  wiiil-rii,  ia 
writing  in  furh  a  manner,  on  fuch  -ft; 

and  I  have  no  reluclance  in  acknowledging, 
that  you  poflefs  a  confiderablc  fhare  cf  energy 
of  language,  and  acutenefs  of  invc .  n; 

though  I  muft  be  allowed  to  lament,  that  Itxefe 
talents  have  not  been  applied  in  a  manner  more 


iifeful  to  human  kind,  and  more  creditable  to 
ycurfelf. 

I  BEGIN  with  your  preface.  You  therein 
ftate— that  you  had  long  had  an  intention  of 
publishing  your  thoughts  upon  religion,  but 
that  you  had  originally  refer ved  it  to  a  later 
period  in  life. — 1  hope  there  is  no  want  of 
charity  in  faying,  that  it  would  have  been  for- 
tunate for  the  chriftian  world,  had  your  life 
been  terminated  before  you  had  fulfilled  your 
intention.  In  accomplifhing  your  purpofe,  you 
will  have  unfettled  the  faith  of  thoufands  ; 
rooted  from  the  minds  of  the  unhappy  virtu- 
ous all  their  comfortable  affurance  of  a  future 
recompenfe;  Jiave  annihilated  in  the  minds  of 
the  flagitious  all  their  fears  of  future  punifli- 
xnent ;  yon  will  have  given  the  reins  to  the  do- 
mination of  every  pallion,  and  have  thereby 
contributed  to  the  introduction  of  the  public 
infecurity,  and  of  the  private  unhappinefs, 
ufually  and  almoft  neceflarily  accompanying  a 
ftate  of  corrupted  morals. 

No  one  can  think  worfe  of  confeffion  to  a 
prieft  and  fubfequent  abfolution,  as  praftiied  in 
the  church  of  Rome,  than  I  do  :  but  I  cannot, 
with  you,  attribute  the  guillotine-maflTacres 
to  that  caufe.  Men's  minds  were  not  pre- 
pared, as  you  fuppofe,  for  the  commiffion  of 
all  manner  of  crimes,  by  any  doftrines  of  the 
church  of  Rome,  corrupted  as  I  efteem  it,  but 
by  their  not  thoroughly  believing  even  that 
religion.  What  may  not  fociety  expect  from 
thofe,  who  (hall  imbibe  the  principles  of  your 
book  ? 


A  FEVER,  which  you  and  thofe  about  you 
cxpefted  would  prove  mortal,  made  you  re- 
member with  renewed  fatisfaftion,  that  you 
had  written  the  former  part  of  your  Age  of 
Reafon — and  you  know  therefore,  you  fay, 
by  experience,  the  confcientious  trial  of  your 
-own  principles.  I  admit  this  declaration  to  be 
a  proof  of  the  fincerity  of  your  perfuafion,  but 
I  cannot  admit  it  to  be  any  proof  of  the  truth 
of  your  principles.  What  is  confcience  ?  Is 
it,  as  has  been  thought,  an  internal  monitor 
implanted  in  us  by  the  Supreme  Being,  and 
dictating  to  us,  on  all  occafions,  what  is  right, 
or  wrong?  Or  is  it  merely  our  own  judgment 
of  the  moral  rectitude  or  turpitude  of  our  own 
a&ions  ?  I  take  the  word  (with  Mr.  Locke) 
in  the  latter,  as  in  the  only  intelligible  ienfe. 
Now  who  fees  not  that  our  judgments  of  vir- 
tue and  vice,  right  and  wrong,  are  not  always 
formed  from  an  enlightened  and  difpaffionate  ule 
of  our  reafon,  in  the  inveftigation  of  truth  ? 
They  are  more  generally  formed  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  religion  we  profefs  ?  from  the  qua- 
lity of  the  civil  government  under  which  we 
live;  from  the  general  manners  of  the  age,  or 
the  particular  manners  of  the  perfons  with 
whom  we  affociate ;  from  the  education  we 
have  had  in  our  youth  :  from  the  books  we 
have  read  at  a  more  advanced  period  ;  and  from 
other  accidental  caufes.  "Who  fees  not  that,  on 
this  account,  confcience  may  be  conformable 
or  repugnant  to  the  law  of  nature  ? — may  be> 
certain,  or  doubtful  ?-r— and  that  it  can  be  n@ 
A  2 


criterion  of  moral  reftitude,  even  when  it  is 
certain,  becaufe  the  certainty  of  an  opinion  is 
no  proof  of  its  being  a  right  opinion  ?  A  man 
may  be  certainly  perfuaded  of  an  error  in  rea- 
foning,  or  an  untruth'in  matters  of  faft.     It  is 
a  maxim  of  every  law,  human  and  divine,  that 
a  man  ought  never  to  aft  in  opposition  to  his 
confcience:  but  it  will  not  from  thence  follow, 
that  he  will,    in  obeying  the  dictates  of  his 
confcience,  on  all  occafions  aft  right.      An  in- 
quifitor,  who  barns  Jews  and  heretics  ;  a  Ro- 
befpierre,  who  maffacres  innocent  and  harmlefs 
women  ;  a  robber,  who  thinks  that  all  things 
ought  to  be  in  common,  and  that  a  (late  of  pro- 
priety is  an  unjuil  infringement  of  natural  li- 
berty ; — thefe,  and  a  thoufand  perpetrators  of 
different  crimes,  may  all  follow  the  diftates  of 
confcience ;  and  may,   at  the  real  or  fuppofed 
approach  of  death,  remember  "  with  renew- 
ed fatisfaftion"  the  worft  of  their  tranfaftions, 
and  experience,  without  difiiaay,  "  a  confcien- 
tious  trial  cf  their  principles."     But  this  their 
confident  ions  compofure,   can  be  no  proof  to 
others  of  the  reftitncle  of  their  principles,  and 
ought  to  be  no  pledge  to  tbemfelves  of  their 
innocence,  in  adhering  to  them. 

I  HAVE  thought  fit  to  make  this  remark, 
with  a  view  of  fuggefting  to  you  a  confidera- 
tion  of  great  importance — whether  you  have 
examined  calmly,  and  according  to  the  befl  of 
your  ability,  the  arguments  by  which  the  truth 
of  revealed  religion  may,  in  the  judgment  of 
learned,  and  impartial  men,  be  eftablifhed? — 


7 

You  will  allow,  that  thonfands  of  learned  and 
impartial  men,  (I  fpeak  not  of  priefts,  who, 
however,  are,  I  truft,  as  learned  and  impartial 
as  yourfelf,  but  of  laymen  of  the  mofl  fplendid 
talents) — you  will  allow,  that  thoufands  of 
thefe,  in  all  ages,  have  embraced  revealed  re- 
ligion as  true.  Whether  thefe  men  have  all 
been  in  an  error,  enveloped  in  the  darknefs  of 
ignorance,  (hackled  by  the  chains  of  fuperfti- 
tion,  whilft  you  and  a  few  others  have  enjoy- 
ed light,  and  liberty,  is  a  queflion  I  fubmit  to 
the  decifion  of  your  readers. 

IF  you  have  made  the  beft  examination  you 
can,  and  yet  rejeft  revealed  religion, as  an  hn- 
poflure,  I  pray  that  God 'may  pardon  what  I 
efleem  your  error.  And  whether  you  have 
made  this  examination  or  not,  does  not  become 
me  or  -any  man  to  determine.  That  gofpel, 
which  you  defpife,  has  taught  me  this  modera- 
tion ;  it  has  faid  to  me,— "  Who  art  thou 
that  judgeft  another  man's  fervant  ?  To  his 
own  mafter  he  ftandeth  or  falleth." — I  think 
that  you  are  in  an  error ;  but  whether  that 
error  be  to  you  a  vincible  or  an  invincible  er- 
ror, I  prefume  not  to  determine.  I  know  in- 
deed where  it  is  faid — "  that  the  preaching  of 
the  crofs  is  to  them  that  perifh  fooliflmefs, — 
and  that  if  the  gofpel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them 
that  are  loft."  The  confequence  of  your  unbe- 
lief mull  be  left  to  the  juft  and  merciful  judg- 
ment of  him,  who  alone  knoweth  the  median- 
ifin  and  the  liberty  of  our  underftandings  ;  the 
origin  of  our  opinions  ;  -the  ftrength  of  our 


o 

o 


prejudices ;  the  excellencies  and  the  defects  of 
our  reafoning  faculties. 

I  SHALL,  defignedly,  write  this  and  the  fol- 
lowing letters  in  a  popular  manner;  hoping  that 
thereby  they  may  Hand  a  chance  of  being  pe- 
rufed  by  that  clafs  of  readers,  for  whom  your 
work  feems  to  be  particularly  calculated,  and 
who  are  the'  molt  likely  to  be  injured  by  it. 
The  really  learned  are  in  no  danger  of  being 
infefted  by  the  poifbn  of  infidelity:  they  will 
excufe  me,  therefore,  for  having  entered  as  lit- 
tle as  poifible  into  deep  difquiiltions  concerning 
the  authenticity  of  the  Bible.  The  fubject 
has  been  fo  learnedly,  and  fo  frequently,  han- 
dled by  other  writer's,  that  it  does  not  want  (I 
had  almoft  laid,  it  does  not  admit)  any  farther 
proof."  And  it  is  the  more  neceflary  to  adopt 
this  mode  of  anfwering  your  book,  becaufe  you 
dilclaim  all  learned  appeals  to  other  books,  and 
undertake  to  prove,  from  the  Bible  itfelf,  that 
it  is  unworthy  of  credit.  I  hope  to  fhevv,  from 
the  Bible  itfelf,  the  clireft  contrary.  But  in 
cafe  any  of  your  readers  fhould  think  that  you 
had  not  put  forth  all  your  ftrength,  by  not  re- 
ferring for  proof  of  your  opinion  to  ancient  au- 
thors ;  left  they  fhould  fufpeft  that  all  ancient 
authors  are  in  your  favour  ;  I  will  venture  to 
affirm,  that  had  you  made  a  learned  appeal  to  all 
the  ancient  books  in  the  world,  facred  or  pro- 
fane, chriftian,  jewifli,  or  pagan,  inftead  of  lef- 
iening,  they  would  have  eftablifhed  the  credit 
and  authority  of  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God 


9 

QUITTING  your  preface,  let  us  proceed  to 
the  work  itfelf ;  in  which  there  is  much  repe* 
tition,  and  a  defeft  of  proper  arrangement. 
I  will  follow  your  track,  however,  as  nearly 
as  I  can.  The  firft  queftion  you  propofe  for 
confideration  is — "  Whether  there  is  fufficient 
authority  for  believing  the  Bible  to  be  the 
"Word  of  God,  or  whether  there  is  not  ?"— 
You  determine  this  queftion  in  the  negative, 
upon  what  you  are  pleafed  to  call  moral  evi- 
dence. You  hold  it  impoffible  that  the  Bible 
can  be  the  word  of  God,  becaufe  it  is  therein 
faid,  that  the  Ifraelites  deflroyed  the  Canaan- 
ites  by  the  exprefs  command  of  God  :  and  to 
believe  the  Bible  to  be  trtie,  we  mult,  you  af- 
firm, ursbelieve  all  our  belief  of  the  moral  juf- 
tice  of  God;  for  wherein,  you  afk,  could  cry- 
ing or  imiling  infants  offend? — I  am  aftonifhed 
that  fo  acute  a  reafoner  fhould  attempt  to  clif- 
parage  the  Bible,  by  bringing  forward  this  ex- 
ploded and  frequently  refuted  objection  of  Mor- 
gan, Tindal,  and  Bolingbroke.  You  profefs 
yourfelf  to  be  a  deifl,  and  to  believe  that  there 
is  a  God,  who  created  the  univerfe,  and  efta- 
blifhed  the  laws  of  nature,  by  which  it  is  fiifV 
tained  in  exiftence.  You  profefs  that  from  the 
contemplation  of  the  works  of  God,  you  de- 
rive a  knowledge  of  his  attributes;  and  you  re- 
jedt  the  Bible,  becauie  it  afcribes  to  God  things 
inconfiftent  (as  you  fuppofe)  with  the:  at: 
butes  which  you  have  difcovered  to  belong  to 
him:  in  particular,  you  think  it  repugnant  to 
his  moral  juftice,  that  he  ffiould  doom  to  de- 


10 

ftruftion  the  crying  or  fmiling  infants  of  the 
Canaanites. — Why  do  you  not  maintain  it  to 
be  repugnant  to  his  moral  juftice,  that  he  fhould 
fuffer  crying  or  fmiling  infants  to  be  fwallowed 
up  by  an  earthquake,  drowned  by  an  inunda- 
tion, confumed  by  a  fire,  ftarved  by  a  famine, 
or  deftroyed  by  a  peftilence  ?  The  "Word  of 
God  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  his  work  ;  cry- 
ing or  fmiling  infants  are  fubje£ted  to  death 
in  both.  We  believe  that  the  earth,  at  the  ex- 
prefs  command  of  God,  opened  her  mouth,  and 
fwallowed  up  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram, 
with  their  wives,  their  fons,  and  their  little 
ones.  This  you  efteem  fo  repugnant  to  God's 
moral  juftice,  that  you  fpurn,  as  fpurious,  the 
book  in  which  the  circumftance  is  related. 
When  Catania,  Lima,  and  Liibon,  were  ievc- 
rally  deftroyed  by  earthquakes,  men  with  their 
wives,  their  fons,  and  their  little  ones,  were 
fwallowed  up  alive  : — why  do  you  not  fpurn, 
as  fpurious,  the  book  of  nature  in  which  this 
faft  is  certainly  written,  and  from  the  perufal 
of  which  you  infer  the  moral  juftice  of  God  ? 
You  will,  probably,  reply,  that  the  evils  which 
the  Canaanites  differed  from  the  exprefs  com- 
mand of  God,  were  different  from  thofe  which 
are  brought  on  mankind,  by  the  operation  of 
the  laws  of  nature. — Different !  In  what  ? — - 
Not  in  the  magnitude,  of  the  evil — not  in  the 
fubjedls  of  fufferance — not  in  the  author  of  it — 
for  my  philofophy,  at  lead,  inftrufts  me  to  be- 
lieve that  God  not  only  primarily  formed,  but 
that  he  hath  through  all  ages  executed  the 


II 

laws  of  nature  ;  and  that  he  will,  through  all 
eternity  adminifter  them,  for  the  general  hap- 
pinefs  of  his  creatures,  whether  we  can,  on 
every  occafion,  difcern  that  end  or  not. 

I  AM  far  from  being  guilty  of  the  impiety 
of  queftioning  the  exiftence  of  the  moral  juf- 
tice  of  God,  as  proved  cither  by  natural  or  re<- 
vealed  religion ;  what  I  contend  for  is  fhortly 
this— that  you  have  no  right,  in  fairnefs  of  rea- 
foning,  to  urge  any  apparent  deviation  from 
moral  juflice,  as  an  argument  againft  revealed 
religion,  becaufe  you  do  not  urge  >an  equally 
apparent  deviation  from  it,  argument 

againft  natural  religion  :  yea  a^ecf  the  for- 
mer, and  admit  the  latter,  i^ertii  g 
that,  as  to  your  objection,  u  and  or 
fall  together. 

As  to  the  Ganaanites,  it  is  needjefs  to  enter 
into  any  proof  of  the  depraved  (late  of  their 
morals  ;  they  were  a  wicked  people  in  the  time 
of  Abraham,  and  they,  even  then,  were  de- 
voted to  deftru&ion  by  God ;  but  their  iniquity 
was  not  then  full.  In  the  time  of  Mofes,  tiiey 
were  idolaters,  facrificers  of  their  own  crying 
or  fmiling  intants  ;  devoujrers  of  human  fie/h : 
addicted  to  unnatural  luft;  immerfcd  in  the  fil- 
thinefs  of  all  manner  of  vice.  Now,  I  think, 
it  will  be  impoffible  to  prove,  that  it  was  a 
proceeding  contrary  to  God's  moral  juftice,  to 
exterminate  fo  wicked  a  people.  He  made  the 
Ifraelites  the  executors  of  his  vengeance  ;  and, 
in  doing  this,  he  gave  fuch  an  evident  and  ter- 
rible proof  of  his  abomination  of  vice,  as  could 


12 

not  fail  to  ftrike  the  furrounding  nations  with 
aflonifhment  and  terror,  and  to  imprefs  on  the 
minds  of  the  Ifraelites  what  they  were  to  ex- 
pe£t,  if  they  followed  the  example  of  the  na- 
tions whom  he  commanded  them  to  cut  off. 
"  Ye  fliall  not  commit  any  of  thefe  abomina- 
tions— that  the  land  fpue  not  you  out  alfo,  as 
it  fpued  out  the  nations  that  were  before  you." 
How  ftrong  and  defcriptive  this  language  !  the 
vices  of  the  inhabitants  were  fo  abominable, 
that  the  very  land  was  fick  of  them,  and  for- 
ced to  vomit  them  forth,  as  the  flomach  dif- 
gorges  a  deadly  poifon. 

I  HAVE  often  wondered  what  could  be  the 
reafon  that  men,  not  deftitute  of  talents,  fhould 
be  defirous  of  undermining  the  authority  of  re- 
vealed religion,  and  ftudious  in  expofing,  with 
a  milignant  and  illiberal  exultation  every  little 
difficulty  attending  the  fcriptures,  to  popular 
animadverfion  and  contempt.  I  am  not  will- 
ing to  attribute  this  ftrange  propensity  to  what 
Plato  attributed  the  Atheifm  of  his  time — to 
profligacy  of  manners — to  affectation  off]  ngu- 
larity — to  grofs  ignorance,  afluming  the  fem- 
blance  of  deep  refearch  and  fuperior  fagacity  ; 
— I  had  rather  refer  it  to  an  impropriety  of 
judgment  refpefting  the  manners,  and  mental 
acquirements,  of  human  kind  in  the  firft  ages 
of  the  world.  Moft  unbelievers  'argue  as  if 
they  thought  that  man,  in  remote  .and  rude 
antiquity,  in  the  very  birth  and  infancy  of 
our  fpecies,  had  the  fame  diftinft  conceptions 
of  one ?  eternal,  invifible,  incorporeal,  infinite- 


ly  wife,  powerful,  and  good  God,  which 
they  themfelves  have  now.  This  I  lock 
upon  as  a  great  miftake,  and  a  pregnant 
fource  of  infidelity.  Human  kind,  by  long 
experience;  by  the  inflitutions  of  civil  foci- 
ety  ;  by  the  cultivation  of  arts  and  fcienccs; 
by,  as  I  believe,  divine  inftrii&ipn  actually 
given  to  fome,  and  traditionally  communica- 
ted to  all ;  is  in  a  far  more  diftmguifhed  fitu- 
ation,  as  to  the  powers  of  the  mind,  than 
it  was  in  the  childhood  of  the  world.  The 
hiftory  of  man,  is  the  hiftory  of  the  pro- 
vidence of  God;  who,  willing  the  fuprenie 
felicity  of  all  his  creatures,  has  adapted  his 
government  to  the  capacity  of  thofc,  who 
in  different  ages  were  the  fubjefts  cf  it. 
The  hiftory  of  any  one  nation  throughout 
all  ages,  and  that  of  all  nations  in  th?  fame 
age,  are  but  feparate  parts  of  one  great  plan, 
which  God  is  carrying  on  for  the  moral 
melioration  of  mankind.  But  who  can  com- 
prehend the  whole  of  this  immenfe  delign? 
The  fhortnefs  of  life,  the  weaknefs  of  our 
faculties,  the  inadequacy  of  our  means  of 
information,  confpire  to  make  it  impoflible 
for  us,  worms  of  the  earth !  infeds  of  an  hour ! 
completely  to  underftand  anyone  of  it's  parts. 
No  man,  who  well  weighs  the  fubjcft,  ought 
to  be  fbrpriied,  that  in  the  hiftories  of  an- 
cient times  many  things  fhould  occur  foreign 
to -our  manners,  the  propriety  and  neceffity 
of  which  we  cannot  clearly  apprehend. 
B 


IT  appears  incredible  to  many,  that  God 
Almighty  fhould  have  had  colloquial  inter- 
courfe  with  our  firft  parents  ;  that  he  fhould 
have  contraftecl  a  kind  of  friendship  for  the 
patriarchs,  and  entered  into  covenants  with 
them  ;  that  he  fliould  have  fufpended  the 
laws  of  nature  in  Egypt ;  fhould  have  been 
fo  apparently  partial,  as  to  become  the  God 
and  governor  of  one  particular  nation ;  and 
fliould'  have  fo  far  demeaned  himfelf,  as  to 
give  to  that  people  a  burdenfome  ritual  of 
worfhip,  ftatutes  and  ordinances,  many  of 
which  feem  to  be  beneath  the  dignity  of  his 
attention,  unimportant  and  impolitic.  I 
have  converfed  with  many  deifts,  and  have 
'always  found  that  the  ftrangenefs  of  thefe 
things  was  the  only  reafon  for  their  dilbe- 
lief  of  them  :  nothing  fimilar  has  happened 
in  their  time ;  they  will  not,  therefore,  ad- 
mit, that  thefe  events  have  really  taken  place 
at  any  time.  As  well  might  a  child,  when 
arrived  at  a  ft  ate  of  manhood,  contend  that 
he  had  never  either  flood  in  need  of,  or  ex- 
perienced the  foftering  care  of  a  mother's 
kindncfs,  the  wearifome  attention  of  his 
nurie,  or  the  inftruftiori  and  clifcipline  of  his 
fchoolmafter.  The  Supreme  Being  felefted 
one  family  from  an  idolatrous  world;  nurfed 
it  up,  by  various  acts  of  his  providence,  in- 
to a  great  nation  ;  communicated  to  that  na- 
tion a  knowledge  of  his  holinefs,  juflice, 
mercy,  power,  and  wifdom  ;  difleminated 


thern,  at  various  times,  through  every  } 
of  the  earth,  that  they  might  be  a  t;  leaven 
to  leaven  the  whole  lamp,"  that  they  might 
affure  all  other  nations  of  the  cxiitence  of 
one  Supreme  God,  the  creator  and  preferver 
of  the  world,  the  only  proper  object  of  ado- 
ration.  With  what  reafon  can  we  expect, 
that  what  was  done  to  one  nation,  not  out 
of  any  partiality  to  them,  but  for  the  gene- 
ral good,  fhould  be  clone  to  all?  that  the' 
mode  of  Snflrucftion,  which  was  fuited  to  the 
infancy  of  the  world,  fhould  be  extended  to 
the  maturity  of  its  manhood,  or  to  the  im- 
becility of  it's  old  age;  I  own  to  you,  that 
when  I  confider  how  nearly  man,  in  a  favage 
ftate,  approaches  to  the  brute  creation,  as  to 
intellectual  excellence;  and  when  I  contem- 
plate his  miierable  attainments,  as  to  the 
knowledge  of  God,  in  a  civilised  ftate,  when 
he  has  had  no  divine  inftru&ion  on  the  lub- 
jecl,  or  when  that  inftruetion  has  been  for- 
gotten, (for  all  men  have  known  fomething. 
of  God  from  tradition,)  I  cannot  but  admire 
the  wiiclom  and  goodncfs  of  the  Supreme 
Being,  in  having  let  himfelf  down  to  our 
apprehenfions;  in  having  given  to  mankind, 
in  the  earlieft  ages,  fenfible  and  extraordina- 
ry proofs  of  his  exiftence  and  attributes;  in 
having  made  the  jewifh  and  chriftian  difpen- 
fations  mediums  to  convey  to  all  men,  through 
ail  ages,  that  knowledge  concerning  himfelf, 
which  he  had  vouchfafed  to  give  immediate- 


16 

ly  to  the  firft.  I  own  it  is  ftrangr,  very 
ftrange,  that  he  ftiould  have  made  an  imme- 
diate manifeftation  of  hi  mil  If  in  the  firft 
ages  of  the  world,  but  what  is  there  that  is 
not  ilrange?  It  is  (tiange  that  you  and  I  are 
Lore — that  there  is  water,  and  earth;  and  air, 
and  lire — that  there  is  a  fun,  an-d  moon,  and 
ftars — that  there  is  generation,  corruption, 
reproduction.  I  can  account  ultimately  for 
none  of  theie  things,  without  recurring  to 
him  who  made  every  thing,  I  alfo  am  his 
•workmanfhip,  and  look  up  to  him  with  hope 
of  pidervation  through  all  eternity;  I  adore 
him  for  his  word  as  well  as  for  his  work: 
his  work  I  cannot  comprehend,  but  his  word 
hath  allured  me  of  all  that  I  am  concerned 
to  know — that  he  hath  prepared  cverlafiing 
happinefs  for  thofe  who  love  and  obey  him. 
This  you  will  call  preachment, — I  \vill 
have  done  with  it ;  but  the  fubject  is  fo  vaft, 
and  the  plan  of  providence,  in  my  opinion, 
fo  obvioufly  wife  and  good,  that  I  can  never 
think  of  it  without  having  my  mind  filled 
with  piety,  admiration,  and  gratitude. 

IN  addition  to  the  moral  evidence  (as  you 
are  pleafed  to  think  it)  againft  the  Bible, 
you  threaten,  in  the  progrefs  of  your  work, 
to  produce  fuch  other  evidence  as  even  a 
prieft  cannot  deny.  A  philofopher  in  fearch 
of  truth,  forfeits  with  me  all  claim  to  can- 
dour and  impartiality,  when  he  introduces 


railing  for  reafoning,  vulgar  and  illiberal 
farcafm  in  the  room  of  argument.  I  will  not 
imitate  the  example  you  fet  me :  but  examine 
what  you  fhall  produce  with  as  much  cool- 
nefs  and  refpeft,  as  if  you  had  given  the  prieils 
no  provocation •;  as  if  you  were  a  man  of  the 
mod  unblemifhed  character,  fubjeft  to  no  pre-. 
judices,  actuated  by  no  bad  defigns,  not  liable' 
to  have  abufe  retorted  upon  you  with  fucccfk. 


LETTER     II. 


BEFORE  you  commence  your  grand 
attack  upon  the  Bible,  you  wiih  to  eftabliih 
a  difference  between  the  evidence  neceflary 
to  prove  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible,  and 
that  of  any  other  ancient  book.  I  am  not 
furprifed  at  your  anxiety  on  this  head  ;  for 
all  writers  on  the  fubjeft  -have  agreed  in 
thinking  that  St.  Auftin  reafoned  well,  whenr 
in  vindicating  the  genuinenefs  of  the  Bible, 
lie  allied, — ij*  what  proofs  have  we  that  the 
works  of  Plato,  Ariftotle,  Cicero,  Varro, 
and  othej:  profane  authors,  were  written  by 
thofe  whole  names  they  bear  ;  unlefs  it  be 
that  this  has  been  an  opinion  generally  re- 
ceived at  all  times,  and  by  all. thofe  who  have 
lived  finee  thtfe  authors  r"  This  writer 
was  convinced,  that  the  evidence  which  ef- 
tabliftied  the  gtrr.uinenefs  of  any  profane  book, 
would  -efiabliih  that  of  aiacred  bock;  and  ! 
profefs  rnyfelf  to  be  of  the  fame  ephrlorr. 
jso^ithftaridlng  what  you  have  advance:; 
tig.'  contrary.. 


IN  this  part  your  ideas  feem  to  me  to  be 
confufed;  I  do  not  fay,  that  you,  defignedlyf 
jumble  together  mathematical  fcience  and  hif- 
torical  evidence  ;  the  knowledge  acquired  by 
demonftration,  and  the  probability  derived 
from  teftimony. — You  know  but  of  one  an- 
cient book,  that  authoritatively  challenges 
univerfal  confent  and  belief,  and  that  is  Eu- 
clid's elements. — If  I  were  difpofed  to  make 
frivolous  obje&ions,  I  fliould  fay,  that  even 
Eaclidrs  Elements  had  not  met  with  univer- 
fal confent ;  that  there  had  been  menr  both 
in  ancient  and  modern  times,  who  had  quef- 
tioned  the  intuitive  evidence  of  (ome  of  his 
axioms,  and  denied  the  jullnefs  of  fome  of 
his  demonstrations ;  but,  admitting  the  truth, 
I  do  not  fee  the  pertinency  of  your  ohfcrva- 
•  tion.  You  are  attempting  to  fubvert  the 
authenticity  of  the  Bible,  and  you  tell  us- 
that  Euclid's  Elements  are  certainly  true. — - 
What  then  ? — Does  it  follow  that  the  Bible 
is  certainly  talfe  ?  The  rnoft  illiterate  fcri- 
vener  in  the  kingdom  does  not  want  to  bs 
informed,  that  the  examples  in  his  Wingate's 
Arithmetic,  are  proved  by  a  different  kind 
of  reafoning  from  that  by  which  he  perfuades 
hioifelf  to  believe,  that  there  was  (uch  a 
perfon  as  Henry  VIII,  or  that  there  is-fucb 
a  city  as  Paris.. 

IT  may  be  of  ufe,  to  remove  this  ronfufion. 
ia  your  argument,  to f (late,  diftindly,   the 


T 


2O 

difference  between  the  genuinenefs,  and  the 
authenticity,  of  a  book.  A  genuine  book, 
is  that  which  was  written  by  the  peirfon 
whole  name  it  bears,  as  the  author  of  it. 
An  authentic  book,  is  that  which  relates 
matters  of  faft,  as  they  really  happened.  A 
book  may  be  genuine  without  being  authen- 
tic ;  and  a  book  may  be  authentic  without 
being  genuine.  The  books  written  by  Ri- 
chardfon,  and  Fielding  are  genuine  books 
though  the  hiftories  of  ClarifTa  and  Torn 
Jones  are  fables.  The  hlflory  of  the  iiland 
of  Formofa  is  a  genuine  book;  it  was  writ- 
ten by  Pfalmanazar;  but  it  is  not  an  authen- 
tic book,  (though  it  was  long  eileemed  as 
fuch, .and  tranfiated  into  different  languages,) 
for  the  author,  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life, 
took  fhatne  to  himfelf  for  having  impofed  on. 
the  world,  and  confefled  that  it  was  a  mere 
romance.  Artfon's  voyage  may  be  confider- 
ed  as  an  authentic  book,  it,  probably,  con- 
taining a  true  narration  of  the  principal 
events  recorded  in  it  ;  but  it  is  not 'a  genu- 
ine book,  having  not  been  written  by  Wal- 
ters, to  whom  it  is  afcribed,  but  by  Robins, 

THIS  cliftinftion  between  the  genuinenefs 
and  authenticity  of  a  book,  will  affifc  us  in 
detecting  the  fallacy  of  an  argument,  which 
you  jftate  with  great  confidence  in  the  part 
of  your  work  now  under  confederation,  and 
which  you  frequently  allude  to,  hi  ether 


21 

parts,  as  conclnfive  evidence  againfl  the 
truth  of  the  Bible.  Your  argument  (lands 
thus — if  it  be  found  that  the  books  afcribed 
to  Moles,  Jofhua,  and  Samuel,  were  not 
written  by  Mofes,  Jofiuia,  and  Samuel,  eve- 
ry part  of  the  authority  and  authenticity  of 
thefe  books  is  gone  at  once. — I  prefume  to 
think  otherwife.  The  genuinenefs  of  thefe 
books  (in  the  judgment  of  thole  who  fay 
that  they  were  written  by  thefe  authors) 
will  certainly  begone;  but  their  authentici- 
ty may  remain;  they  may  ft  ill  contain  a  true 
account  of  real  tranfa£tions,  though  the 
names  of  the  writers  of  them  fhould  be  found 
to  be  different  from  what  they  are  generally 
efteemed  to  be, 

HAD,  indeed,  Mofes  faid  that  he  wrote 
the  firft  five  books  of  the  Bible;  and  had  Jo- 
fliua  and  Samuel  faid  that  they  wrote  the 
books  which  are  refpe&tvely  attributed  to 
them;  and  had  it  been  found,  that  Mofes, 
Joflhua,  and  Samuel,  did  not  write  thefe 
books;  then,  I  grant,  the  authority'of  the 
whole  would  have  been  gone  at  once;  thefe 
men  would  have  been  found  liars,  as  to  the 
genuinenefs  of  the  books;  and  this  proof  of 
their  want  of  veracity,  in  one  point,  would 
have  invalidated  their  teftimony  in  every 
other  ;  thefe  books  would  have  been  juftly 
fligmatized,  as  neither  genuine  nor  authen- 
tic, 


22 

AN  hiftory  may  be  true,  though  it  ftuuild 
not  only  be  afcribed  to  a  wrong  author,  but 
though  the  author  of  it  fhould  not  be  known  ; 
anonymous  teftimony  does  not  deftroy  the 
reality  of  facts,  whether  natural  or  miracu- 
lous. Had  Lord  Clarendon  published  his 
Hiftory  of  the  Rebellion,  without  prefixing 
bis  name  to  it  ;  or  had  the  hiftory  of  Titus 
Livius  come  down  to  us,  under  the  name  of 
Valerius  Flaccus,or  Valerius  Maximus  ;  the 
facts  mentioned  in  thefe  hiftories  would  have 
been  equally  certain. 

As  to  your  aflTertion,  that  the  miracles  re- 
corded in  Tacitus,  and  in  other  profane  hif- 
tofians,  are  quite  as  well  authenticated  as 
thofe  of  the  Bible — it,  being  a  mere  afTertion, 
destitute  of  proof,  may  be  properly  anfwer- 
ed  by  a  contrary  affertion.  I  take  the  liber- 
ty then  to  fay,  that  the  evidence  for  the  mi- 
Vacles  recorded  in  the  Bible  is,  both  in  kind 
and  degree,  fo  greatly  fbperior  to  that  for 
the  prodigies  mentioned  by  Livy,  or  the  mi- 
racles related  by  Tacitus,  as  to  juftify  us  in 
giving  credit  to  the  one  as  the  work  of  God, 
and  in  with  holding  it  from  the  other  as  the 
effect  of  fuperftition  and  impofture.  This 
method  of  derogating  from  the  credibility 
of  Christianity,  by  oppoiing  to  the  miracles 
of  our  Saviour,  the  tricks  of  ancient  impof- 
tors,  feems  to  have  originated  with  Hiero- 
cles  in  the  fourth  century  ;  and  it  has  been 


adopted  by  unbelievers  from,  that  time  to 
this  ;  with  this  difference,  indeed,  that  the 
heathens  of  the  third  and  fourth  century  ad- 
mitted that  Jefus  wrought  miracles;  but  left 
that  admiffion  fhould  have  compelled  them 
to  abandon  their  gods  and  become  Chriftians, 
they  faid,  that  their  slpol/onius,  their  Apu- 
leius ^  their  Arifteas,  did  as  great  :  whilfl 
modern  cleifts  deny  the  fa<£t  of  Jefus  having 
ever  wrought  a  miracle.  And  they  have 
fome  reafon  for  this  proceeding  ;  they  a^e 
fenfible  that  the  gofpel  miracles  are  fo  differ- 
ent, in  all  their  circumflances,  from  thofe 
related  in  pagan  ftory,  that,  if  they  admit 
them  to  have  been  performed,  they  muft  ad- 
mit chriftianity  to  be  true  ;  hence  they  have 
fabricated  a  kind  of  deiftical  axiom — that  no 
human  tcftimony  can  eftablifli  the  credibility 
of  a  miracle.— -This,  though  it  has  been  an 
hundred  times  refuted,  is  ftill  infifted  upon, 
as  if  its  truth  had  never  been  queftioned,  and 
could  not  be  difproved. 

You  "  proceed  to  examine  the  authenti- 
city of  the  Bible  ;  and  you  begin,  you  fay, 
with  what  are  called  the  five  books  of  Mofes, 
Genefis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and 
Deuteronomy.  Your  intent  ion,  youprofefs,  is 
to  (hew  that  thefe  books  are  fpurious,  and . 
that  Mofes  is  not  the  author  of  them  ;  and 
ftill  farther,  that  they  were  not  written  in 
the  time  of  Mofes,  nor  till  feveral  hundred 


24 

years  afterwards  ;  that  they  are  no  other 
than  an  attempted  hiftory  of  the  life  of  Mo- 
fes, and  of  the  times  in  which  he  is  faid  to 
have  lived,  and  alfo  of  the  times  prior  there- 
to, written  by  fome  very  ignorant  and  fhi- 
pid  pretender  to  authorftiip,  leveral  hundred 
years  after  the  death  of  Mofes." — In  thispaf- 
fage  the  utmoft  force  of  your  attack  on  the 
authority  of  the  five  books  of  Mofes  is  clear- 
ly dated.  You  are  not  the  fir  ft  who  has 
ftarted  this  difficulty  ;  it  is  a  difficulty,  in- 
deed, of  modern  date  ;  having  not  been  heard 
of,  either  in  the  fyragogue,  or  cut  of  it, 
till  the  twelfth  century.  About  that  time 
Aben  Ezra,  a  Jew  of  great  erudition,  noticed 
fome  paffages  (the  fame  which  you  have 
brought  forward)  in  the  five  firft  books  of 
the  Bible,  which  he  thought  had  not  been 
written  by  Mofes,  but  inferted  by  fome  per- 
fon  after  the  death  of  Mofes.  But  he  was 
far  from  maintaining,  as  you  do,  that  thefe 
books  were  written  by  fome  ignorant  and 
ftnpid  pretenderto  authorftiip, many  hundred 
years  after  the  death  of  Mofes.  I'f\  t-les  con- 
tends that  the  books  of  Mofes  r-e  fo  called, 
not  from  their  having  been  written  by  Mo- 
fes, but  from  their  containing  an  actount  of 
Mofes.  Spinoza  fupportcd  the  fame  opini- 
on ;  and  Le  Glerc,  a  very  able  theological 
critic  of  the  laft  and  prefent  century,  once 
entertained  the  lame  notion.  You  fee  that 
this  fancy  has  had  fome  patrons  before  you ; 


25 

the  merit  or  the  demerit,  the  fagacity  or  the 
temerity  of  having  afferted,  that  Moles  is 
not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  is  not  ex- 
chT.fi vely  your's.  Le  C/erc,  indeed,  you  muft 
not  boaftof.  When  his  judgment  was  matur- 
ed by  age,  he  was  afhamed  of  what  he  had 
written  on  the  fubjcft  in  his  younger*  yearsi 
He  made  a  public  recantation  of  his  error, 
by  annexing  to  his  commentary  on  Genefis, 
a  Latin  differtation — concerning  Mofcs,  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  his  defign  in 
.compofing  it.  If  in  your  future  life  you 
fhould  chance  to  change  your  opinion  on  the 
fubjeft,  it  will  bean  honor  to  your  character 
to  emulate  the  integrity,  and  tu  imitate  the 
example  of  Le  Clerc.  The  Bible  is  not  the 
.only  book  which  has  undergone  the  fate  of 
being  reprobated  as  fpurions,  after  it  had 
been  received  as  genuine  and  authentic  for 
many  ages.  It  has  been  maintained  that  the 
hiftory  of  Herodotus  was  written  in  the  time 
of  Conftantine  ;  and  that  the  claffics  are  for- 
geries of  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  centu- 
ry. Thefe  extravagant  reveries  amufed  the 
world  at  the  time  of  their  publication,  and 
have  long  flnce  funk  into  oblivion.  You  ef- 
teem  all  -prophets  to  be  fuch  lying  rafcals, 
that  I  dare  ftot  venture  to  predict  the  fate  of 
your  book, 

BEFORE  you  produce  your  main  objecti- 
ons to  the  genuineuefs  of  the  books  of  Mo- 

C 


26 

fes,  you  affert — that  "  there  is  no  affirmative 
evidence  that  Mofes  is  the  author  of  them." 
• — What  !  no  affirmative  evidence  !  In  the 
eleventh  century  Malmonides  drew  up  a  con- 
feffion  of  faith  for  the  Jews,  which  all  of 
them  at  this  clay  admit  ;  it  confifts  of  only 
thirteen  articles  ;  and  two  of  them  have  re- 
fpedt  to  Moles  ;  one  affirming  the  authenti- 
city, the  other  the  gcnuinenefs  of  his  books. 
— The  doctrine  and  prophecy  of  Mofes  is 
true-r-The  law  that  we  have  was  given  by 
Mofes,-^— This  is  the  faith  of  the  Jews  at 
pr^fent,,  and  has  been  their  faith  ever  fince 

:  the'.deflruftion  of  their  city  and  temple  :  it 
was  their  faith  in  the  time  when  the  authors 

•toof  the  New-Teftament  wrote  ;  it  was  their 
faith  during  their  captivity  in  Babylon:  in 
the  time  of  their  kings  and  judges  ;  and  no 
period  can  be  fhown,  from  the  age  of  Mofes 
to  the  prefent  hour,  in  which  it  was  not  their 
faith — Is  this  no  affirmative  evidence .?  I  can- 
not defire  a  ftronger.  Jojephus^  in  his  book 
againft  dppion,  writes  thus — 4k  We  have  on- 
ly two  and  twenty  books  which  are  to  be  be- 
lieved as  of  divine  authority,  and  which  com- 
prehend the  hiftory  of  all  ages  ;  five  belong 
to  Mofes,  which  contain  the  original  of  man, 
and  the  tradition  of  the  fucceffion  of  genera- 
tions, down  to  his  death,  which  takes  in  a 
.compafs  of  about  three  thoufand  years."  Do 
you  confider  this  as  no  affirmative  evidence  ? 
Why  (hould  I  mention  Juvenal  fpeaking  of 


27 

the  volume  which  Mofes  had  written  ?  Why 
enumerate  a  long  lift  of  profane  authors,  all 
bearing  teftimony  to  the  fact  of  Mofes  being 
the  leader,  and  the  law-giver  of  the  Jewifh 
nation  ?  and  if  a  law  giver,  furely,  a  writer 
of  the  laws.  But  what  fays  the  Bible  ?  'In 
Exodus  it  fays — "  Mofes  wrote  all  the  words 
of  the  Lord,  and  took  the  book  of  the  cove- 
nant, and  read  in  the  audience  of  the  peo- 
ple/'— In  Deuteronomy  it  fays— "  And  it 
came  to  pafs,  when  Mofes  had  made  an  end  of 
writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book,  un- 
til they  were  finifhed,  (this  furely  imports  the 
the  fin  idling,  a  laborious  work,)  that  Mofes 
commanded  the^Levites  which  bare  the  ark  of 
the  covenant"  of  the  Loi;d,  faying,  Take  this 
book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  in  the  fide  of  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  your  God,  that 
it  may  be  there  for  a  witnefs  againft  thee." 
This  is  faid  in  Deuteronomy,  which  is  akind 
of  repetition,  or  abridgment  of  the  four  prc- 
reding  books  ;  and  it  is  well  known  that  the 
evvs  gave  the  name  of  the  Law  to  the  firft 
five  books  of  the  Old  Teftament.  What 
poiiible  doubt  can  there  be  that  Mofes  wrote 
he  books  in  quellion  ?  I  could  accumulate 
nany  other  paflages  from  the  fcriptures  to 
his  purpofe  ;  but  if  what  I  have  advanced 
ill  not  convince  you  that  there  is  affirma- 
ivc  evidence,  and  of  the  ftrongeft  kind,  for 
lofes  being  the  author  of  thefe  books,  no* 
ling  that  I  can  advance  will  convince  you, 

tt 


WHAT  if  I  (hould  grant  all  you  under- 
take to  prove  (the  ftupiclity  and  ignorance 
of  the  writer  excepted)  ? — What  if  I  {hould 
admit,  that  Samuel,  6r  Ezra,  or  fonie  other 
learned  Jew,  com  poled  thefe  books,  from 
public  records,  many  years  after  the  death 
of  Mofes?  Will  it  follow,  that  there  was  no 
truth  in  them  ?  According  to  my  logic,  it 
will  only  follow,  that  they  are  riot  genuine 
books ;  every  fa£l  recorded  in  them  may  be 
true,  whenever,  or  by  whomsoever  they 
\V-ere  written.  It  cannot  be  faid  that  the 
Jews  had  no  public  records  ;  the  Bible  fur- 
infhes  abundance  of  proof  to  the  contrary. 
I  by  no  means  admit,  that  thefe  books,  as  to 
the  main  part  of  them,  were  not  written 
by  Mofes;  but  I  do  contend,  that  a  book 
may  contain  a  true  hiflory,  though  we  know 
not  the  author  of  it ;  or  though  we  may  be. 
miftaken  in  afcribing  it  to  a  wrong  author. 

THE  firft  argument  you  produce  againft 
Mofes  being  the  author  of  thefe  books  is  fo 
old,  that  I  do  not  know  its  original  author; 
and  it  is  fo  miferable  an  one,  that  I  wonder 
you  {hould  adopt  it — "  Thefe  books  cannot 
be  written  by  Mofes,  becaufe  they  are  wrote 
in  the  third  perfon — it  is  always,  The  Lord 
faid  unto  Mofes,  or  Mofes  laid  unto  the 
Lord.  This,  you  fey,  is  the  ftyle  and  man- 
ner that  hiftorians  ufe  In  fpeaking  of  the  per- 
fon whofe  lives  and  actions  they  are  writing.'1 


This  obfervation  is  true,  but  it  does  riot  ex- 
tend far  enough  ;  for  this  is  the  ftyle  and 
manner  not  only  of  hiftorians  writing  of 
other  perfons,  but  of  eminent  men,  fuch  as 
Xenophon  and  Jojefhus^  writing  of  them- 
felves.  If  General  t7ajhington  fhonld  write 
the  hiftory  of  the  American  war,  and  fhould, 
from  his  great  modefty,  ipeak  of  himfelf  in. 
the  third  perion,  would  you  think  it  reafon- 
able  that,  two  or  three  tho.ufand  years  hence, 
any  peribn  (hould,  on  that  account,  contend, 
that  the  hiftory  was  not  true  ?  Gfffar  writes 
of  himfelf  in  the  third  perfon — it  is  always, 
Csfar  made  a  fpeech,  or  a  fpeech  was  made 
to  Caefar,  Csefar  eroded  the  Rhine,  Caefar 
invaded  Britain  ;  but  every  fchool-boy  knows, 
that  this  circumftance  cannot  be  adduced  as  a 
fcTious  argument  againft  Caefar's  being  the; 
author  of  his  own  commentaries., 

BUT  Mofes,  you  urge,  cannot  be  the  au- 
thor of  the  book  of  Numbers, — becaufe  he 
fays  of  himfelf — "  that  Mofes  was  a  very 
meek  .man,  above  all  the  men  that  were  on. 
the  face  of  the  earth."  If  he  had  faid  this 
of  himfelf,  he  was,  you  fay,  "  a  vain  and 
arrogant  coxcomb,  (fuch  is  your  phrafe!) 
and  unworthy  of  credit — and  if  he  did  not 
fay  it,  the  books  are  without  authority. " 
This  your  dilemma  is  perfectly  harmleis; 
it  has  not  an  horn  to  hurt  the  weakeft  logi- 
cian, If  Mofes  did  not  write  this  little  vcrfc 

C    2 


3° 

if  it  was  infertcdlDy  Samuel,  or  any  of  his  . 
countrymen,  who  knew  his  character,  and 
revered  his  memory,  will  it  follow  that  he 
did  not  write  any  other  part  of  the  book  of 
Numbers  ?  Or  if  he  did  not  write  any  part 
of  the  book  of  Numbers,  will  it  follow  that 
he  did  not  write  any  of  the  other  books  of 
which  he  is  ufually  reputed  the  author  ? 
And  if  he  did  write  this  of  himfelf,  he  was 
jufdfied  by  the  occafion  which  extorted  from, 
him  this  commendation.  Had  this  expreffion 
been  written  in  a  modern  flyle  and  manner, 
it  would  probably  have  given  you  no  offence. 
For  who  would  be  ib  faftidious  as  to  find  fault 
with  an  illuftrious  man,  who,  being  calum- 
niated by  his  neareft  relations,  a:,  guilty  of 
pride,  and  fond  of  power,  fhould  vindicate  his 
character  by  faying,  My  temper  was  natu- 
rally as  meek  and  unaffuming  as  that. of  any 
man  upon  earth?  There  are  occafions,  m 
which  a  modeft  man,  who  fpeaks  truly,  may 
fpeak  proudly  of  himfelf,  without  forfeiting 
his  general  character;  and  there  is  no  occa- 
fion,  which  either  more  requires,  or  more 
excufes  this  conduft,  than  when  he  is  repel- 
ling the  foul  and  envious  afperfions  of  thofe 
who  both  knew  his  character  and  had  expe- 
rienced his  kindnels :  and  in  that*  predicament 
flood  Aaron  and  Miriam,  the  accufers  of 
JMofes.  You  yourfelf  have,  probably,  felt 
the  ft  ing  of  calumny,  and  have  been  anxious 
ta  remove  the  iinprcljion.  I  do  not  call  you 


a  vain  and  arrogant  coxcomb  for  vindicating 
your  character,  when  in  the  latter  part  of 
this  very  work  you  boaft,  and  I  hope  truly, 
"  that  the  man  does  not  exift  that  can  fay  I 
have  perfecuted  him,  or  any  man,  or  any  fet 
of  men,  in  the  American  revolution,  or  in 
the  French  revolution;  or  that  I  have  in 
any  cafe  returned  evil  for  evil."  I  know  not 
what  kings  and  priefts  may  fay  to  this  ;  you 
may  not  have  returned  to  them  evil  for  evil, 
becaufe  they  never,  I  believe,  did  you  any 
harm;  but  you  have  done  them  all  the  harm 
you  could,  and  that  without  provocation, 

I  THINK  it  needlefs  to  notice  your  obfer- 
vation  upon  what  you  call  the  dramatic  ftyle 
of  Deuteronomy  ;  it  is  an  ill-founded  hypo- 
Ihefis.  You  might  as  well  a(k,  where  the 
author  of  Caefar's  commentaries  got  the 
fpeeches  of  Cxfar,  as  where  the  author  of 
Deuteronomy  got  the  fpeeches  of  Mofes- 
But  your  argument — that  Mofes  was  not  the 
author  of  Deuteronomy,  becaufe  the  reafon 
given  in  that  book  for  the  obfervation  of  the 
iabbath  is  different  from  that  given  in  Exo- 
dus, merits  a  reply. 

You  need  not  be  told  that  the  very  name 
of  this  book  imports,  in  Greek,  a  repetition 
of  a  lav/  ;  and  that  the  Hebrew  doctors  have 
called  it  by  a  word  of  the  fam?  meaning.  In 
the  fifth  verle  of  the  firft  chapterit  is  faid  in 


our  Bibles,  "  Moles  began  to  declare  this 
law  ;"  but  the  Hebrew  words,  more  proper- 
ly tranflated,  import  that  Mofes  4i  began,  or 
determined,  to  explain  the  law."  This  is 
DO  fhift  of  mine  to  get  ever  a  difficulty ;  the 
words  are  fo  rendered  in  moft  of  the  ancient 
verfions,  and  by  Fagius,  Vetablus,  and  Le 
C/:*T,  men  eminently  /killed  in  the  Hebrew 
language.  This  repetition  and  explanation 
of  the  law,  was  a  wife  and  benevolent  pro- 
ceeding in  Moies  ;  that  thofe  who  were  ei- 
ther not  born,  or  were  mere  infants,  when 
it  was  firft  (forty  years  before)  delivered  in 
Horeb,  might  have  an  opportunity  of  know- 
ing it  ;  efp-rcially  as  Moies  their  leader  was 
foon  to  be  taken  from  them,  and  they  were 
about  to  be  fettled  in  the  midfi  of  nations 
given  to  idolatry  and  funk  in  vice.  Now 
where  is  the  wonder,  that  fome  variations, 
and  fome  additions  fhould  be  made  to  a  law, 
when  a  legislator  thinks  fit  to  rejjublifli  it 
many  years  after  its  firft  promulgation  ? 

WITH  refpeft  to  the  fabbith,  the  learned 
are  divided  in  opinion  concerning  its  origin  ; 
forne  contending,  that  it  was  fanflified  from 
the  creation  of  the  world ;  that  it  was  ob- 
ferved  by  the  patriarchs  before  the  flood  ; 
that  it  was  neglefted  by  the  Ifraelites  during 
their  bondage  in  Egypt ;  revived  on  the  fal- 
ling of  manna  in  the  wildernefs;  and  enjoin- 
ed as  a  pofitive  law,  at  Sinai.  Others  eitccm 


55 

its  inftitution  to  ])ave  been  no  older  than 
the  age  of  Mofes ;  and  argue,  that  what  is 
faid  of  the  fanftification  of  the  fabbath  in  the 
book  of  Genefis,  is  faiclby  way  of  anticipa* 
tion.  There  may  be  truth  in  both  thefe  ac- 
counts. To  me  it  is  probable,  that  the  me* 
inory  of  the  creation  was  handed  down  from 
Adam  to  all  his  pofterity  ;  and  that  the  fe- 
venth  day  was,  for  a  long  time,  held  facred 
by  all  nations,  in  commemoration  of  that 
event;  but  that  the  peculiar  rigidrfefs  of  its 
obfervance  was  enjoined  by  Mofes  to  the  If- 
raelites  alone.  As  to  there  being  two  rea- 
fons  given  for  its  being  kept  holy, — one,  that 
on  that  day  God  relied  from,  the  work  of 
creation — the  other,  on  that  day  God  had  gi- 
ven them  reft  from  the  fervitude  of  Egypt 
— I  fee  no  con  tradition  in  the  accounts.  If 
a  man,  in  writing  the  Hiftory  of  England, 
fhould  inform  his  readers,  that  the  parliament 
had  ordered  the  fifth  of  November  to  be  kept 
holy,  becaufe  on  that  day  God  had  delivered 
the  nation  from  a  bloody-intended  maflacrc 
by  gun-powder  ;  and  if,  in  another  part  of 
his  hiflory,  he  (hould  affigri  the  deliverance 
of  our  church  and  nation  from  popery  and 
arbitrary  power,  by  the  arrival  of  King  Wil- 
liam, as  a  reafon  for  its  being  kept  holy  ; 
would  any  one  contend,  that  he  was  not  juf- 
tified  in  both  thefe  ways  of  expreffion,  or 
that  we  ought  from  thence  to  conclude,  that 
he  was  not  the  author  qf  them  bpth  ? 


54 

You  think — •"  that  law  in  Deuteronomy 
inhuman  and  brutal,  which  authorifes  pa- 
rents, the  father  and  the  mother,  to  bring 
their  own  children  to  have  them  floned  to 
death  for  what  it  is  pleaied  to  call  flubborn- 
neis." — Yo'u  are  aware,  I  fuppoie,  that  pa- 
ternal  power,  among'!!  the  Remans,  the  Gauls , 
the  Per/2  am  ^  and  other  nations,  was  of  the 
mod  arbitrary  kind;  that  it  extended  to  the 
taking  away  the  life  of  the  child.  I  do  not 
know  wjiether  the  Israelites  in  the  time  of 
Mofes  excrcifecl  this  paternal  power;  it  was 
not  a  cuflom  adopted  by  all  nations,  but  it  was 
by  many;  and  in  the  infancy  of  fociety,  be- 
fore individual  families,  had  coalcfced  into 
cornmunkies,  it  was  probably  very^  general. 
Now  Moles,  by  this  law,  which  you  efleern 
brutal  and  inhuman,  hindered  fuch  an  extra- 
vagant power  from  being  either  introduced 
or  exercifed  amongft  the  Israelites.  This  law 
is  fo  far  from  countenancing  the  arbitrary 
power  of  a  father  ever  the  life  of  his 
child,  that  it  takes  from  him  the  power 
of  accuiing  the  child  before  a  magiftrate 
- — the  father  and  the  mother  of  the  child  mufl 
agree  in  bringing  the  child  to  judgment — 
and  it  is  not  by  their  united  will  that  the 
child  was  to  be  condemned  to  death  ;  the  el- 
ders of  the  city  were  to  judge  whether  the 
accufation  was  true  ;  and  the  accufation  was 
to  be  not  merely,  as  you  iniinuate,  that  the 
child  was  ftubborn,  but  that  he  was  "  fti  b- 
born  and  rebellious,  a  glutton  and  a  drunk- 


ard."  Confidercd  in  this  light,  you  mirft 
allow  the  law  to  have  been  an  humane  reftric- 
tion  of  a  power  improper  to  be  lodged  with 
any  parent. 

THAT  you  may  abufe  the  priefts,  you  aban- 
don your  fubj eft — "  Priefts,  you  (ay,  preach 
up  Deuteronomy,  for  Deuteronomy  preach- 
es up  tythes." — I  do  not  know  that  priefts 
preach  up  Deuteronomy,  more  than  they 
preach  up  other  books  of  fcripture ;  but  I 
do  know  that  tythes  are  not  preached  up 
in  Deuteronomy,  more  than  in  Leviticus,  in 
Nu-nbers,  in  Chronicles,  in  Malachi,  in  the 
law,  the  hiftory,  and  the  prophets  of  the 
Jewifh  nation. — You  go  on — tfc  it  is  from  this 
book,  chap.  xxv.  ver.  4.,  they  have  taken 
the  phrafe,  and  applied  it  to  ty  thing,  "  Thou 
(halt  not  muzzle  the  ox  when  he  treadeth 
out  the  corn -;"  and  that  this  might  not  efcape 
obfervation,  they  have.noted  it  in  the  table  of 
contents  at  the  head  of  the  chapter,  though  it 
Is  only  a  fingle  verfe  of  lefs  than  two  lines.  O 
priefts!  priefts!  ye  are  willing  to  be  compared 
to  an  ox  for  the  fake  of  tythes!" — 1  cannot  call 
this — reafoning — and  I  will  not  pollute  my 
page  by  giving  it  a  proper  appellation.  Had 
the  table  of  contents,  inftead  of  fimply  fay- 
ing— the  ox  is  not  to  be  muzzled — laid — • 
tythes  enjoined,  or  priefts  to  be  maintained — , 
there  would  have  been  a  little  ground  for 
your  cenfure.  Whoever  npted  this  phrafe 


36 

at  the  head  of  the  chapter,  had  better  rea* 
fan  for  doing  it,  than  you  have  attributed  to 
them.  They  did  it,  becanfe  St.  Paul  had 
quoted  it,  when  he  was  proving  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, that  they  who  preached  the  gof- 
pel  had  a  right  to  live  by  the  gofpel ;  it  was 
Paul,  and  not  the  priefts,  who  firft  applied 
this  phrafe  to  tything.  St.  Paul,  indeed, 
did  not  avail  himfejf  of  the  right  he  con- 
tended for  ;  he  was  not,  therefore,  interefted 
in  what  he  faid.  The  reafon,  on  which  he 
grounds  the  right,  is  not  merely  this  quota- 
tion, which  yon  ridicule;  nor  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  law  of  Mofes,  which  you  think 
fabulous;  nor  the  injunction  of  Jefus,  which 
you  defpife  ;  no,  it  is  a  reafon  founded  in 
the  nature  of  things,  and  which  no  philofo- 
pher,  no  unbeliever,  no  man  of  common 
fenfe  can  deny  to  be  a  folid  reafon ;  ir  amounts 
to  this— that  "  the  labourer  is  worthy  of 
his  hire."  Nothing  is  fo  much  a  man's  own, 
as  his  labour  and  ingenuity  ;  and  it  is  entire- 
ly confonai.t  to  the  law  of  nature,  that  by 
the  innocent  uie  of  thefe  he  fhould  provide 
for  his  fubfiftence.  Hufbandmen,  artifts,  fol- 
diers,  phyficians,  lawyer?,  all  let  out  their 
labour  and  talents  for  a  ftipulated  reward  : 
why  may  not  a  prieft  do  the  fame  ?  Some 
accounts  of  you  have  been  published  in  En- 
gland ;  but,  conceiving  them  to  have  pro- 
ceeded from  a  defign  to  injure  your  charac- 
ter, I  never  read  them.  I  know  nothing  of 


57 

your  parentage,  your  education,  or  condition 
in  life.  You  may  have  been  elevated,  by 
your  birth,  above  the  neceffity  of  acquiring 
the  means  of  fuflaining  life  by  the  labour  ei- 
ther of  hand  or  head  :  if  this  be  the  cafe,  you 
ought  not  to  defpife  thofe  who  have  come 
into  the  world  in  lefs  favourable  circum- 
ftances.  If  your  origin  has  been  lefs  fo;tu- 
nate,  you  mufl  have  fupported  yourfelf,  ei- 
ther by  manual  labour,  or  the  exercife  of 
your  genius.  Why  fnould  you  think  that 
conduit  difreputable  in  priefts,  which  you. 
probably  confider  as  laudable  in  yourfelf?  I 
know  not  whether  you  have  not  as  great  a 
difiike  of  kings  as  of  priefts  ;  but  that  you 
may  be  induced  to  think  more  favourably  of 
men  of  my  profeffion,  I  will  juft  mention  to 
you  that  the  payment  of  tythes  is  no  new* 
inftitution,  but  that  they  were  paid  in  the 
moil  ancient  times,  not  to  priefts  only,  but 
to  kings.  I  could  give  you  an  hundred  in- 
ftances  of  this :  two  may  be  fufficient.  Abra- 
ham paid  tytbes  to  the  king  of  Salem,  four 
hundred  years  before  the  law  of  Mofes  was  gi- 
ven. The  king  of  Salem  was  prieft  alfb  of 
the  moft  high  God.  Priefts,  you  fee,  exift- 
ecl  in  the  world,  and  were  held  in  high  efti- 
mation.  for  kings  were  priefts,  long  before 
the  irnpoftures,  as  you  eileem  them,  of  the 
jcwifli  and  Chriftian  difpenfations  were  heard 
of.  But  as  this  inftunce  is  taken  from  a  book 
which  you  call  "  a  book  of  contradictions 
D 


and  lies" — the  Bible  ; — I  will  give  you  ano- 
ther, from  a  book,  to  the  authority  of  which, 
as  it  is  written  by  a  profane  author,  you 
probably  will  not  objeft.  Diogenes  Laerti- 
us,  in  his  life  of  Solon,  cites  a  letter  of  Pifi- 
fir  at  us  to  that  lawgiver,  in  which  he  fays — 
46  I  Pififtratus,  the  tyrant,  am  contented 
with  the  ftipends  which  were  paid  to  thofe 
who  reigned  before  me ;  the  people  of  Athens 
fet  apart  a  tenth  of  the  fruits  of  their  land, 
not  for  my  private  ufe,  but  to  be  expended 
in  the  public  facrifices,  and  for  the  general 
good." 


LETTER    III. 


A  V  I  N  G  done  with  what  you  call 
the  grammatical  evidence  that  Moies  was  not 
the  author  of  the  books  attributed  to  him, 
you  come  to  your  hiftorical  and  chronologi- 
cal evidence  ;  and  you  begin  with  Gcneiis, 
Your  firft  argument  is  taken  from  the  {Ingle 
word — Dan — being  found  in  Genelis,  when 
it  appears  from  the  book  of  Judges,  that  the 
town  of  Lai fii  was  not  called  Dan  till  above 
three  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  the  death 
of  Mofes ;  therefore  the  writer  of  Genefis* 
you  conclude,  mull  have  lived  after  the  town 
of  Laifti  had  the  name  of  Dan  given  it.  Left 
this  objection  fhould  not  be  obvious  enough 
to  a  common  capacity,  you  illuftrate  it  in  the 
following  manner;  "  Havre-de-Grace  was 
called  Havre-Marat  in  1793;  fli°uld  then 
any  datelefs  writing  be  found,  in  after-times, 
with  the  name  of  Havre-Marat,  it  would  be 
certain  evidence  that  fuch  a  writing  could 


4o 

•pot  have  been  written  till  after  the  year 
jygg."  This  is  a  wrong  conclufion.  Sup- 
pofe  fome  hot  republican  ihould  at  this  day 
publifh  a  new  edition  of  any  old  hiftory  of 
France,  and  infceacl  of  Havre-de-Grace  fhould 
write  Havre-Marat;  and  that  two  or  three 
thoufand  years  hence,  a  man,  like'yourfelf, 
ihould,  on  that  account,  reject  the  whole 
hi  (lory  asfpurious,  would  he  be  juftified  in  fo 
doing?  Would  it  not  be  reafonable  to  tell 
him — that  the  name  Havre-Marat  had  been 
inferted,  not  by  the  original  author  of  the 
hilloiy,  but  by  a  fubfequent  editor  of  it ;  and 
to  refer  him,  for  a  proof  of  the  genuineness 
of  the  book,  to  the  teftimony  of  the  whole 
French  nation?  This fuppofition  fo  obvioufly 
applies  to  your  difficulty,  that  I  cannot  but 
recommend  it  to  your  impartial  attention. 
But  if  this  folution-  does  not  pieafe  you,  I 
dedre  it  may  be  proved,  that  the  Dan,  men- 
tioned in  Genefis,  was  the  fame  town  as  the 
Dan,  mentioned  in  Judges,  I-defire,  further, 
to  have  it  proved,  that  the  Dan,  mentioned 
in  Genefis,  was  the  name  of  a  town,  and  not 
of  a  river.  It  is  merely  faid — Abraham  pur- 
fued  the  enemies  of  Lot,  to  Dan.  Now  a 
river  was  fall  as  likely  as  a  town  to  flop  a 
purfuit.  Lot,  we  know,  was  fettled  in  the 
plain  of 'Jordan  ;  and  Jordan,  we  know,  was 
cornpofed  of  the  united  ftreams  of  two  ri- 
vers, called  Jor  and  Dan* 


4i 

YOUR  next  difficulty  refpefts  its  being 
faid  in  Genefis— 4k  Thefe  are  the  kings  that 
reigned  in  Edom  before  there  reigned  any 
king  over  the  children  of  Ifrael: — this  paflV 
age  could  only  have  Keen  written,  you  fay, 
(and  I  think  you  fay  rightly),  after  the  firft 
king  began  to  reign  over  Ifrael;  fo  far  from 
being  written  by  Mofes,  it  could  not  have 
been  written  till  the  time  of  Saul  at  the  leaft." 
I  admit  this  inference,  but  I  deny  its  applica- 
tion. A  fmall  addition  to  a  book  does  not 
deftroy  either  the  genuinenefs  or  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  whole  book.  I  am  not  ignorant 
of  the  manner  in  which  commentators  have 
anfwered  this  objection  of  Spinoza,  without 
making  the  conceffion  which  I  have  made; 
but  I  have  no  fcruple  in  admitting,  that  the 
pafTage  in  qucftion,  colififtihg  of  nine  verfes, 
containing  the  genealogy  of  fome  kings  of 
Edom,  might  have  been  inferted  in  the  book 
of  Genefis,  after  the  hook  of  Chronicles 
(which  was  called  in  Greek  by  a  name  im- 
porting that  it  contained  things  left  out  in' 
other  books)  was  written.  Thr  learned 
have  (hewn,  that  interpolations  have  hap- 
pened to  other  books ,  but  thefe  infertions  by 
other  hands  have  never  been  considered  as  in-- 
validating  the  authority  of  tliofe  book", 

TAKE  away  frcni  Genefis,''  you  fay,.  "  ths" 
the  author,  on  wh  \ciV- 
re  belief  that  it  is  the  v 

D    2 


42 

God  has  ftood,  and  there  remains  nothing  of . 
Genefis  but  an  anonymous  book  of  ftories, 
fables,  traditionary  or  invented  abfurdities, 
or  of  downright  lies.'.' — What !  is  it  a  ftory 
then,  that  the  world  had  a  beginning,  and 
that  the  author  of  it  was  God  ?  If  you  deem 
this  a  ftory,  I  am  not  difputing  with  a  deift- 
ical  philofopher,  but  with  an  atheiftic  mad- 
man. Is  it  a  ftory,  that  our  firft  parents 
fell  from  a  paradiilacal  ftate — that  this  earth 
was  deftroyed  by  a  deluge — that  Noah  and 
his  family  were  preferred  in  the  ark,  and  that 
the  world  has  been  re-peopled  by  hisdefcen- 
dants  ? — Look  into  a  book  fo  common  that 
almoft  every  body  has  it,  and  fo  excellent 
that  no  perfon  ought  to  be  without  it — Gro- 
tius  on  the  truth  of  the  Chriftian  religion — 
and  you  will  there  meet  with  abundant  tef- 
timony  to  the  truth  of  all  the  principal  facts 
recorded  in  Genefis.  The  teftimony  is  not 
that  of  Jews,  Chriftians,  and  priefts;  it  is  the 
teftimeny  of  the  philofophers,  hiftorians  and 
poets  of  antiquity.  The  oldeft  book  in  the 
world  is  Genefis ,  and  it  is  remarkable  that 
thofe  books  which  come  neareft  to  it  in  age, 
arc  thofe-  which  make  either  the  moft  diftinft 
mentkm,  or  the  moil  evident  allufion  to  the 
'facts  related  in  Genefis  concerning  the  for- 
mation of  the  world  from  a  chaotic  mafs,  the 
.vueval  innocence-  and  fubfequent  fall  of 
o,.  the  longevity  of  mankind-  in  the  flrll 
*.,-_,.  of  the  world,  the  dc^/avity  of  the  an- 


45 

tedeluvians,  and  the  deftruftion  of  the  world. 
— Read  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genelis — It  may 
appear  to  you  to  contain  nothing  but  an  un- 
interefting  narration  of  the  deicendants  of 
Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth  ;  a  mere  fable,  an 
invented  abfurdity,  a  downright  lie.  No, 
fir,  it  is  one  of  the  mod  valuable,  and  the 
moft  venerable  records  of  antiquity.  It  ex- 
plains what  all  profane  hiitorians  were'  igno- 
rant of — the  origin  of  nations.  Had  it  told 
us,  as  other  books  do,  that  one  nation  fprung 
out  of  the  earth  they  inhabited ;  another 
from  a  cricket  or  a  grafshopper ;  another  from 
an  oak;,  another  from  a  mufhroo-m;  another 
from  a  dragon's  tooth  ;  then  indeed  it  would 
have  merited  the  appellation  you,  with  fo 
much  temerity,  beftow  upon  it.  In  (lead  of 
•theft  abfurdities,  it  gives  fuch  an  account  of 
peopling  the  earth  after  the  deluge,  as  no  other 
book  in  the  world  ever  did  give ;  and  the 
truth  of  which  all  other  books  in  the  worlcfy 
which  contain  any  thing  on  the  fubjeft,  con- 
firm. The  I  aft  verie  of  the  chapter  fays — 
"  Thefe  are  the  families  of  the  fons  of  No- 
ah, after  their  generations,  in  their  nations: 
and  by  thefe  were  the  nations  divided  in  the 
earth,  after  the  flood."  It  would  require 
great  learning  to  trace  cut,  preciitly,  either 
the  aftual  fit  nation  of  ail  the  countries  in 
which  thefe  founders  of  empires  fettled,  or 
to  ^certain  the  extent  of  their  dominions/ 
This,  however,,  has  been  done  by  various 


44 

authors,  to  the  fatisfa&ion  of  all  competent, 
judges  ;  fo  much  at  lead  to  my  fatisfaction, 
that  had  I  no  other  proof  of  the  authenticity 
of  Genefis,  I  fliould  coniider  this  as  fufficient. 
But,  without  the  aid  of  learning,  any  man 
who  can  barely  read  his  Bible,  and  lias  but 
heard  of  fuch  people  as  the  Affyrlans^  the 
Elamhes^  the  Lydians,  the  Medes,  the  loni- 
ans,  the  Thracians,  will  readily  acknow- 
ledge that  they  had  4ffur^  and  Elam,  and 
Lud,  and  Madai,  and  Jovan,  and  Tiras, 
grandfons  of  Noah,  for  their  refpe£tive  foun- 
ders; and  knowing  this,  he  will  not,  I  hope, 
part  with  his  Bible,  as  a  fyftem  of  fables.  I 
am  no  enemy  to  philofophy ;  but  when  phi- 
lofophy  would  rob  me  of  my  Bible,  I  muft 
fay  of  it,  as  Cicero  faid  of  the  twelve  tables,. 
— This  little  book  alone  exceeds  the  libra- 
ries of  all  the  philofophers  in  the  weight  of 
its  authority,  and  in  the  extent  of  its  utility. 

FROM  tire  abufe  of  the  Bible,  you  proceed  to 
that  of  Mofes,  and  again  bring  forward  the 
fabjed  of  his  wars  in  the  land  of  Canaan. 
There  are  many  men  who  look  upon  all  war 
(would  to  God  that  all  men  faw  it  in  the 
fame  light)  with  extreme  abhorrence^  as  af- 
fiifting  mankind  with  calamities  not  necefla- 
ary,  fliocking  to  humanity,  and  repugnant  to 
reafou.  But  is  it  repugnant  to  reafon  that 
God  fhould,  by  an  exprefs-  acl  of  his  Provi- 
dence, deflroy  a  wicked  nation  ?'  I  am  fbn.cl 


5 


of  confiderlng  the  goodnefs  of  God  as  the 
leading  principle  of  his  conducl  towards 
mankind,  of  confidering  his  juflice  as  fubfer- 
vient  to  his  mercy.  He  punifhes  individuals 
and  nations  with  the  rod  of  his  wrath  ;  but 
I  am  perfuaded  that  all  his  punifhments  ori- 
ginate in  his  abhorrence  of  fin  ;  are  calcula- 
ted to  leflen  its  influence  :  and  are  proofs  of 
his  goodneis  ;  inafmucb  as  it  may  not  be  pof- 
iible  for  Omnipotence  itfelf  to  communicate 
fupremehappinefs  to  the  human  race,  whilfb 
they  continue  flrvants  of  fin.  The  deftruc- 
tion  of  the  Canaanites  exhibits  to  all  nations, 
in  all  ages,' a  fignal  proof  of  God's  difpleafore 
againft  fin  ;  it  has  been  to  others,  and  it  is  to 
ourfelvcs,  a  benevolent  warning.  Mofes 
would  have  been  the  wretch  you  reprelent 
him,  had  he  a£led  by  his  own  authority  alone : 
but  you  may  as  reafonable  attribute  cruelty 
and  murder  to  the  judge  of  the  land  in  con- 
demning criminals  to  death,  as  butchery  and 
maffacre  to  Mofes  in  executing  the  command 
of  God. 

THE  Midianites,  through  the  counfel  of 
Balaam,  and  by  the  vicious  inftrumentality 
of  their  women,  had  feduced  a  part  of  the  If- 
raelites  to  idolatry  ;  to  the  impure  worfliip 
of  their  infamous  god  Baalpeor  : — for  this 
offence,  twenty-four  thoufand  Ifraelites  had 
perifhed  in  a  plague  from  heaven,  and  Mofes 
received  a  command  from  God  "  to  finite 


^^  46 

the  Medianites  who  had  beguiled  the  people/ 
An  army  was  equipped,  and  fent  againft  Mi- 
dian.  When  the  army  returned  victorious, 
Mofes  and  the  princes  of  the  congregation, 
went  to  meet  it  ;  "  and  Mofes  was  wroth 
with  the  officers."  He  obferved  the  women 
captives,  and  he  afked  with  aftomfliment, 
"  Have  ye  faved  all  the  womeR  alive  ?  Be- 
hold, tliefe  caufed  the  children  of  Ifracl, 
through  the  connfel  of  Balaam,  to  commit 
trefpais  againft  the  Lord  in  the  matter  of 
Peor,  and  there  was  a  plague  among  the  con- 
gregation." He  then  gave  an  order  that  the 
boys  and  the  women  ftiould  be  put  to  death, 
but  that  the  youno;  maidens  fhould  be  kept  a- 
livefor  themfelv'es.  I  fee  nothing  in. this  pro- 
ceeding, but  good  policy,  combined  with 
mercy,  The  young  men  might  have  become 
dangerous  aver;  what  they  would  cf- 

teem  their  country's  wrongs  ;  the  mothers 
might  have  again  aliurecl  the  llraeiM :  s  to  the 
love  of  licentious  pleafures,  and  ihr  practice 
of  idolatry,  and  brought  another  plague  up- 
on the  congregation  ;  but  the  young  maidens 
not  being  polluted  by  the  flagitious  habits  of 
their  mothers,  nor  likely  to  create  difturb- 
ancg.  by  rebellion,  were  kept  alive/)  You 
give  a  different  turn  to  the  matter  ;  you  fay 
"that  thirty-two  thoufancl  women-children 
were  conflgned  to  debauchery  by  the  order  of 
Mofes." — Prove  this  and  I  will  allow  that 
Mofes  was  the  horrid  monfter  you  make 
him — prove  this,  and  I  will  allow  that 


47 

the  Bible  is  what  you  call  it — u  a  book  of 
lies,  wickednefs,  and  blafphemy" — prove  this, 
or  excufe  my  warmth  if  I  fay  to  you,  as  Paul 
laid  to  Elymas  the  forcerer,  who  fought  to 
turn  away  Sergius  Paulus  from  the  faith, 
"  O  full  of  all  fubtilty  and  of  all  mifchief, 
thou  child  of  the  devil,  thou  enemy  of  all 
righteoufnefs,  wilt  thou  not  ceafe  to  pervert 
the  right  ways  of  the  Lord  ?" — I  did  not 
when  I  began  thefe  letters,  think  that  I 
ihould  have  been  moved  to  this  leverity  of 
rebuke,  by  any  thing  you  could  have  writ- 
ten ;  but  when  fo  grofs  a  mifreprefentation 
is  made  of  God's  proceedings,  coolnefs  would 
be  a  crime.  The  women-children  were  not 
referved  for  the  purpoies  of  debauchery,  but 
of  flavery  ; — a  cuftom  abhorrent  from  our 
manners,  but  every  where  praftifed  in  for- 
mer times,  and  ftill  praftifed  in  countries 
where  the  benignity  of  the  chriflian  religion 
has  not  foftened  the  ferocity  of  human  na- 
ture. You  here  admit  a  part  of  the  account 
given  in  the  Bible  refpefting  the  expedition 
againft  Midian  to  be  a  true  account  ;  it  is 
not  unreafonable  to  defire  that  you  will  ad- 
mit the  whole,  or  fhew  fufficient  reafon  why 
you  admit  one  part,  and  rejeft  the  other.  I 
will  mention  the  part  to  which  you  have 
paid  no  attention.  The  Ifraelitifh  army  con- 
fided but  of  twelve  thousand  men,  a  mere 
handful  when  oppofed  to  the  people  of  Mi- 
dian ;  yet,  when  the  officers  made  a  mufter 
of  their  troops  after  their  return  from  the 


48 

war,  they  found  they  had  not  loft  a  fingle 
man  !  This  circumftance  ftruck  them  as  fo 
decifive  an  evidence  of  God's  interpofition, 
that  out  of  the  ipoils  they  had  taken,  they 
offered  an  oblation  to  the  Lord,  an  atonement 
for  their  fouls."  Do  but  believe  what  the 
captains  of  thoufands,  and  the  captains  of 
hundreds,  believed  at  the  time  when  thefe 
things  happened,  and  we  fhall  never  more 
hear  of  your  objections  to  the  Bible,  from  its 
account  of  the  wars  of  JVJofes. 

You  produce  two  or  three  other  objecti- 
ons refpe£ting  the  genuinenefs  of  the  firfi  five 
books  of  the  Bibie. — I  cannot  flop  to  notice 
them  :  every  commentator  anfwers  them  in 
a  manner  iliited  to  the  apprehcnfion  of  even 
a  mere  Englifh  reader.      You  calculate,  to 
the   thoiiiar.dth   part  of  an  inch,   the  length 
of  the  iron  bed  of  Qg  the  king  of  Bafhan  ; 
but  you  do  not  prove  that  the  bed  was  too 
big  for  the  body,  or  that  a  Patagonian  would 
have  been  loft  in  it.      You  make  no  allowance 
for  the  fiz.e  of  a  royal  bed ;   nor  ever  fufpeft 
that  king  Og  might  have  been  poffefTed  with 
the  feme  kind  of  vanity,  which  occupied  the 
mind  of  king  Alexander,  when  hfe  ordered 
his  foldiers  to  enlarge  the  fiz,e  of  their  beds, 
that  they  might  give  the  Indians,  iniucceed- 
ing  ages,  a  great  idea  of  the  prodigious  ftjj- 
ture  of  a   Macedonian.      In  many  parts  of 
your  work  you  fpcak  much  in  commendation 


49 

ef  fcience.  I  join  with  you  in  every  com- 
mendation you  can  give  it:  but  you  fpcak 
of  it  in  fuch  a  manner  as  gives  room  to  be- 
lieve, that  you  are  a  great  proficient  in  it ; 
if  this  be  the  cafe,  I  would  recommend  a 
problem  to  your  attention,  the  folution  of 
which  you  will  readily  allow  to  be  far  above 
the  powers  of  a  man  converfant  only,  as 
you  reprefent  priefts  and  bifhops  to  be,  in 
hic^  h&c,  hoc.  The  problem  is  this — To 
determine  the  height  to  which  a  human  bo- 
dy, preferving  its  liinilarity  of  figure,  may 
be  augmented,  before  it  will  perifh  by  its 
own  weight. — When  you  have  folved  this 
problem,  we  (hail  know  whether  the  bed  of 
the  king  of  Bafhan  was  too  big  for  any  giant ; 
whether  the  exiftence  of  a  man  twelve  or 
fifteen  feet  high  is  in  the  nature  of  things  im- 
poffible.  My  philofophy  teaches  me  to  doubt 
of  many  things  ;  but  it  doe3  not  teach  me  to 
re j eft  every  tcftimony  which  is  oppofite  to 
my  experience:  had  I  been  born  in  Shetland, 
I  could,  on  proper  teftimony,  have  believed 
in  the  exiftence  of  the  Lincolnfhire  ox,  or 
of  the  largefl  dray-horfe  in  London  ;  though 
the  oxen  and  hories  in  Shetland  had  not  been 
bigger  tlian  maftiffs. 


LETTER    IV. 


CAVING  iinifhed  your  objections  to 
the  gcnuinencfs  of  the  books  of  Mofes,  you 
proceed  to  your  remarks  on  the  book  of  jo- 
fhua;  and  from  its  internal  evidence,  you  en- 
deavour to  prove,  that  this  book  was  not 
written  by  Joihua — -What  then  ?  what  is 
your  conclulion  ?— u  that  it  is  anonymous, 
and  without  authority." — Stop  a  little ;  your 
conciufion  is  not  connected  with  your  pre- 
inifes  ;  your  friend  Euclid  would  have  been 
afhamed  of  it.  "  Anonymous,  and  therefore 
without  authority  !"  I  have  noticed  thisfo^ 
leclim  before  ;  bat  as  you  frequently  bring  it 
forward,  and,  indeed,  your  book  ftands  much 
in  need  of  it,  I  will  fubmlt  to  your  confider- 
a.tion  another  obfervauon  on  the  fubjeft. 
The  book  called  Fleta  is  anonymous  ;  but  it 
Js  not  on  that  account  without  authority. — 
Domefday  book  is  anonymous,  and  was  writ- 
ten above  fevcn  hundred  years  ago  ;  yet  our 


Courts  of  law  do  not  hold  it  to  be  without 
authority,  as  to  the  facts  related  in  it.  Yes, 
you  will  fay,  but  this  book  Iras  been  preferred 
with  fingular  care  amongft  the  records  of 
the  nation.  And  who  told  you  that  the 
jews  had  no  records,  or  that  they  did  not 
preferve  them  with  fingular  care  f*  Jofephus 
fays  the  contrary  :  and,  in  the  Bible  itfelf, 
an  appeal  is  made  to  many  books,  which 
have  perilled  :  fuch  as  the  book  of  Jaflier, 
the  book  of  Nathan,  ofAbijah,  of  Iddo,  of 
Jehu,  of  natural  hiftory  by  Solomon,  of  the 
afts  of  Manafieh,  and  others  which  might 
be  mentioned.  If  any  one,  having  accefs  to 
the  journals  of  the  Lords  and  Commons,  to 
the  books  of  the  treafury,  war-office,  privy 
council,  and  other  public  documents,  (liould 
at  this  clay  write  an  hiftory  of  the  reigns  of 
George  the  firft  and  fecond,  and  fhould  pub- 
lifh  it  without  his  name,  would  any  man, 
three  or  four  hundreds  or  thoufands  of  years 
lience,  queftion  the  authority  of  that  book, 
when  he  knew  that  the  whole  Britifh  nation 
had  received  it  as  an  authentic  book  from 
the  time  of  its  firft  publication  to  the  age  in 
\vhich  he  lived  ?  Thisfuppofition  is  in  point. 
The  books  of  the  Old  Teftament  were  com- 
pofed  from  the  records  of  the  jewifli  nation, 
and  they  have  been  received  as  true  by  that 
nation,  from  the  time  in  which  they  were 
written  to  the  prefent  day.  Dodfley's  An- 
nual llegifter  is  an  anonymous  book,  we  only 


52 

know  the  name  of  its  editor ;  the  New  An- 
nual Regifter  is  an  anonymous  book  ;  the  Re- 
views are  anonymous  books  ;  but  do  we,  or 
will  our  posterity,  efleem  thefe  books  of  no 
authority  ?  On  the  contrary,  they  are  admit- 
ted at  prefent,  and  will  be  received  in  after 
ages,  as  authoritative  records  of  the  civil, 
military,  and  literary  hiftory  of  England 
and  of  Europe.  So  little  foundation  is  there 
for  our  being  ftartied  by  your  afftrtion,  "  It 
Is  anonymous  and  without  authority." 

IF  I  am  right  in  this  reafoning  (and  I  pro- 
left  to  you  that  I  do  not  fee  any  error  in  it,) 
all  the  arguments  you  adduce  in  proof  that 
the  book  of  Jofhua  was  not  written  by  Jo- 
fliua,  nor  that  of  Samuel  by  Samuel,  are  no- 
thing,, to  the  purpofe  for  which  you  have 
brought  them  forward  ;  thefe  books  may  be 
books  of  authority,  though  all  you  advance 
againft  the  genuinenefs  of  them  fhould  be 
granted.  No  article  of  faith  is  injured  by 
allowing  that  there  is  no  fuch  pofitive  proof, 
when  or  by  whom  thefe,  and  fome  other  books 
of  holy  (cripture,  were  written,  as  to  exclude 
all  poffibility  of  doubt  and  cavil.  There  is 
no  neceffity,  indeed,  to  allow  this,  The 
chronological  and  hiftoricaldifficulties,  which 
others  before  you  have  produced,  have  been 
anfwered,  and  as  to  the  greateft  part  of  them, 
fo  well  anfwered,  that  I  will  not  wafte  the 


55 

reader's  time  by  entering  into  a  particular 
examination  of  them.  **X 

You  make  yourfelf  merry  with  what  you 
call  the  tale  of  the  fun  (landing  dill  upon 
mount  Gjbeon,  and  the  moon  in  the  jv  alley 
of  AjafojnTpand  you  fay  that  "  the  ftory  cle- 

:s  itfelf,  becaufe  there  is  not  a  nation  in 
the  world  that  knows  any  thing  about  it." 
How  can  youcxpcft  that  there  fhould,  when 
there  is  not  a  nation  in  the  world  whofe  an- 

""••'.  ...  .  XXWHM****"  -^.^*^<^<- 

nals  reach  this  sera  by  many  hundred  years  r 

J  •vmv&i&J  ji  iflWHjilimaMBii        J  "••»-;•••. 

It  happens,  however,  that  you  are  probably 

mi  (taken  as  to  the  faft  ^^£2£Si£^-  ^r^i2l^LLf 
concerning  this  miracle/^ncTTTimilar  one  in 
the  time  o[  -.Ahaz,  when  the  fun  went  bach 

i  "11  ";*;V  i         ^-^— n_ 

ten  degrees,  has  been  prefers7 ;d  araongit  one 
'of  the  mod  ancient  nations,  as  we  are  inform- 
ed by  one  of  the  mod  ancient  hiftorians. 
Herodotus,  in  his  Euterpe,  fpcakino;  of  the_ 

**fc*Vrt»i^a»fc#v  n  r*  jp**fl*w*^  *"**    *^k 

Egyptian  pncf^,    ^Lfc — ^    *"".ey   told  njp      } 

"'"that  the  funTad  four  times  deviated  fr. 

.  .^^^  *w*#* 

liss  courie,  having  twice  riien  wnere  he  uni- 

"v  -•-^^9-.-?  i'  >WMM  -  7  I 

formly   goes  down,    and   t^jjyice  gone  dcv>  a      ./ 
J^     k  he  uniformly   rifes.^This  hov/evcr 
liad  produced  no  alteration  in  the  climate  of 
Egypt ;   the  fruits  of  the  earth 9  and  the  phe- 
nomena of  the   Nik  had  always   been   the 
fkme."  "(Beloe's  Tninfl.)      The"lafi  ]:art  of 
this    cbiervation    confirms    the    ccnjccUuer 
that  this  account  of  the  Egyptian  prku-;  had 
a  reference  to  tr.c  two  miracles 


54 

the  fun  mentioned  in  fcriptnre  ;  for  they 
were  not  of  that  kind,  which  could  intro- 
duce any  change  in  climates  or  feafons.  You 
would  have  been  contented  to  admit  the  ac- 
count of  this  miracle  as  a  fine  piece  of  po- 
etical imagery ; — you  may  have  feen  fome 
Jewifh  doctors,  and  fomeChriftian  commen- 
tators, who  conficier  it  as  fuch  ;  but  impro- 
perly, in  my  opinion.  I  think  it  idle,  at 
Jeaft,  if  not  impious,  to  undertake  to  explain 
how  the  miracle  was  performed;  but  one 
who  is  not  able  to  explain  the  mode  of  doing 
a  thing,  argues  ill  if  he  thence  infers  that  the 
thing  was  not  done.  We  are  perfectly  igno- 
rant how  the  fun  was  formed,  how  the  pla- 
nets were  projected  at  the  creation,  how 
they  are  ftill  retained  in  their  orbits  by  the 
power  of  gravity  ;  but  we  admit,  Botwith- 
ftanding,  that  the  fun  was  formed,  that  the 
planets  were  then  projected,  and  that  they 
are  Pull  retained  in  their  orbits.  The  ma- 
chine of  the  univerfe  is  in  the  hand  of  God; 
he  can  ftop  the  motion  of  any  part,  or  of  the 
whole  of  it,  with  lefs  trouble  and  lefs  clanger 
of  injuring  it,  than  yon  can  ftop  your  watch. 
In  teftimony  of  the  reality  of  the  miracle* 
the  author  of  the  book  fays — "  Is  not  this 
written  in  the  book  of  Jaflier  ?" — No  author 
in  his  fenfes  would  have  appealed,  in  proof 
of  his  veracity,-  to  a  book  which  did  not  ex- 
ift,  or  in  atteftation  of  a  fact  which,  though 
ic  did  exLftfcWas.  not  recorded  in  it ;  we 


55 

fafely  therefore  conclude,  that;  at  the  time 
the  book  of  Jofhua  was  written,  there  was 
fuch  a  book  as  the  book  of  Jalher,  and  that 
the  miracle  of  the  fun's  ftanding  ftiil  was  re- 
corded in  that  book.  Bat  this  obiervation, 
you  will  fay,  does  not  prove  the  face  of  the 
fan's  having  (lood  (till :  I  have  not  produced 
it  as  a  proof  of  that  fa£l;  bat  it  proves  that 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Jofhua  believed 
the  fa£V,  that  the  people  of  Ifrael  admitted 
the  authority  of  the  book  of  Jafher.  An  ap- 
peal to  a  fabulous  book  would  have  been  as 
fenielefs  an  infult  upon  their  underftandiug, 
as  it  would  have  been  to  our's,  had  Rapin  ap- 
pealed to  the  Arabian  Night's  Entertainment, 
as  a  proof  of  the  battle  of  Haftings. 

I  CANNOT  attribute  much  weight  to  your 
argument  again  ft  the  genuinenefs  of  the  book 
of  Jofhua,  from  its,  being  faid  that — ;fc  Jofliua 
burned  Ai,  and  made  it  an  heap  for  ever,  even 
a  defolation  unto  this  day"  Jofhua  lived 
twenty-four  years  after  the  burning  of  Ai  : 
and  if  he  wrote  his  hiftory  in  the  latter  part 
of  his  life,  what  abfurdity  is  there  in  faying* 
Ai  is,  (till  in  ruins,,  or  Ai  is  in  ruins  to  this 
very  day  ?  A  young  man,  who  had  feen  the 
heads  of  the  rebels,  in  forty- five,  when  they 
were  firft  ftuck  upon  poles  at  Temple-Bar, 
might,  twenty  years  afterwards,  in  attefla- 
tion  of  his  veracity  in  fpeaking;  of  the  fa£t, 
have  juftJy  fakl—  And  they  are  there  to  this 


56 

very  day.  Whoever  wrote  the  eofpel  of  St. 
M3tlhew.it  was  written  not  mi  y  cc.ii  .::rics, 
prohoiy  (I  had  almoft  fliicl  certainly)  no;  a 
c.'irler  of  one  century  after  the  death  of 
Jeihs;  yet  the  author,  (peaking  of  the  pot- 
ter's field  which  had  been  purchafed  by  the 
chief  priefts  with  the  money  they  had  given 
Ju.hs  t:>  betray  his  matter,  fays,  that  it  was 
therefore  called  the  field  of  blood  unto  thr; 
day  ;  and  in  another  place  he  fays,  that  the 
ftory  of  the  body  of  Jefus  being  ftolen  out 
of  the  fepulchre  was  commonly  reported 
among  the  Jews  until  this  day.  Mofcs,  in 
his  old  age,  had  made  ufe  of  a  fmiilar  ex- 
preHion,  when  he  put  the  Ifraelites  in  mind 
of  what  the  Lord  had  done  to  the  Egyptians 
in  the  reel  fea,  "  The  Lord  hath  destroyed 
them  unto  this  day.  (Deut.  xL  4.) 

IN  the  laft  chapter  of  the  book  of  jofliua 
it  is  related  that  Jofhua  afletnbled  all  the 
tribes  of  Ifrael  to  Sbechem  ;  and  there,  in 
the  prefence  of  the  elders  and  principal  men 
of  Ifrael,  he  recapitulated,  in  a  ftiort  fpeechr 
all  that  God  had  done  for  their  nation,  from 
the  calling  of  Abraham  to  that  time,  when 
they  were  fettled  in  the  land  which  God 
had  promifed  to  their  forefathers.  In  finiili- 
ing  his  fpeeeh,  he  faid  to  them — "  Choofe 
you  this  day  whom  you  will  ferve,  whether 
the  gods  which  your  fathers  ferved,  that 
were  on  the  other  fide  of  the  flood,  or  th^ 


57 

gods  of  the  Amorites,  in  whofe  land  ye 
dwell:  but  as  for  me  and  my  houfe,  we  will 
ferve  the  Lord.  And  the  people  anfwered 
and  faid,  God  forbid  that  we  fhoulcl  forfake 
the  Lord  to  ferve  other  gods."  Jofhua  ur- 
ged farther,  that  God  would  not  fuffer  them 
to  worfhip  other  gods  in  fellowfhip  with 
him;  they  anfwered,  that  "  they  would 
ferve  the  Lord."  Jofhua  then  faid  to  them, 
"  Ye  are  witnefles  again  ft  yourfelves  that  ye 
have  chofen  you  the  Lord  to  ferve  him. 
And  they  faid,  We  are  witnefles"  Here 
was  a  folemn  covenant  between  Jofhua,  on 
the  part  of  the  Lord,  and  all  the  men  of  If- 
rael,  on  their  own  part. — The  text  then 
fays — "  So  Jofhua  made  a  covenant  with  the 
people  that  day,  and  fet  them  a  ftatute  and 
'an  ordinance  in  Shechem,  and  Jo/Jiua  wrote 
thefe  words  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  God" 
Here  is  a  proof  of  two  things — firft,  that 
there  was  then,  a  few  years  after  the  death 
of  Moles,  exifting,  a  book  called  The  Book 
of  the  Law  of  God  ;  the  fame,  without 
doubt,  which  Mofes  had  written,  and  com- 
mitted to  the  cuftody  of  the  Levites,  that  it 
might  be  kept  in  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of 
the  Lord,  that  it  might  be  a  witnefs  againft 
them — fecondly,  that  Jofhua  wrote  a  part  at 
leaft  of  his  own  tranfa£Honsin  that  very  book, 
as  an  addition  to  it.  It  is  not  a  proof  that  he 
wrote  all  his  own  tranfaftions  in  any  book  ; 
but  I  fubmit  entirely  to  the  judgment  of  every 


candid  man,  whether  this  proof  of  his  having 
recorded  a  very  material  tranfadlion,  does  not 
make  it  probable  that  he  recorded  other  ma- 
terial tranfa&ions  ;  that  he  wrote  the  chief 
part  of  the  book  of  Jofliua  ;  and  that  fuch 
things  as  happened  after  his  death,  have  been 
inferted  in  it  by  others,  in  order  to  render 
the  hiftory  more  complete. 

THE  book  of  Joflma,  chap.  vi.  ver.  26,  is 
quoted  in  the  fir  it  book  of  Kings,  chap.  xvi. 
34..  "  In  his  (Ahab's)  clays  did  Hiel  the 

Bethelite  build  lerico:    he  laid  the  founda- 
»j 

tion  thereof  in  Abiram  his  iirft-born,  and  fet 
up  the  gates  thereof  in  his  younger!  fon  Se* 
gub,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
which  he  (pake  by  Jofhua  the  fon  of  Nun." 
Here  is  a  proof  that  the  book  of  Jofliua  is 
older  than  the  firfl  book  of  Kings;  but  that 
is  not  all  which  may  reqfonably  be  inferred, 
I  do  not  fay  proved,  from  this  quotation. — - 
It  may  be  inferred  frofn  the  phrafe — accord* 
ing  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  which  he  fpake 
by  Jofliua  the  fon  of  Nun — that  Jofliua  wrote 
down  the  word  which  the  Lord  luid  fpoken. 
In  Bariich,  (which,  though  an  apocryphal 
book,  is  authority  for  this  purpofe)  there  is 
a  fimilar  plirate — as  thou  fpakeft  by  thy  fer- 
vant  Mofes  in  the  day  when  thou  didft  com- 
mand him  to  write  thy  law. 

I  THIN  K  it  unneceflary  to  make  any  obfer- 
vation  on  what  you  fay  relative  to  the  book 


59 

of  Judges  ;  but  I  cannot  pafs  unnoticed  your 
ccnfure  of  the  book  of  Ruth,  which  you  call 
"  an  idle  bungling  ftory,  fooUfhly  told,  no- 
body knows  by  whom,  about  a  ftrolling  coiin-^ 
try  girl  creeping  flily  to  bed  to  her  coufiii 
Boaz;  pretty  {tuff,  indeed,  you  exciaim  to 
be  called  the  word  of  God!"— It  ieems  to 
me  that  you  do  not  perfectly  comprehend 
what  is  meant  by  the  expreffion — the  Word 
of  God — ror  the  divine  authority  of  thefcrip- 
tures  : — I  will  explain  it  to  you  in  the  wo;d$ 
of  Dr.  Law,  late  bifhop  of  CarliOe,  and  in 
thofe  of  St.  Auftin.  My  firft  quotation  is 
from  bifhop  Law's  Theory  of  Religion,  a 
book  not  undeferving  your  notice. — "  The 
true  fenfe  then  of  the  divine  authority  of  the 
books  of  the  Ql<;i  Teftament,  and  which  per-* 
haps  is  enough  to  denominate  them  in  gene- 
ral .divinely  infpircd^  feems  to  be  this;  th^{ 
as  in  thofe  times  God  has  all  along,  befide 
the  infpe&ion,  or  fuperintendency  of  his  ge- 
neral providence,  interfered  upon  particular 
cccafiORS,  by  giving  expreis  commiiiions  to 
feme  perfons  (thence  called  prop  fiefs)  to  de- 
clare his  will  in  various  manners,  and  degrees 
of  evidence,  as  beftfuited  the  occafion,  time^, 
and  nature  ol  the  fubjeft  ;  and  in  all  other 
cafes,  left  them  wholly  to  thevuielves  :  in 
like  manner,  he  has  interpofed  his  more  im- 
mediate alliftancc,  (and  notified  it  to  them, 
as  they  did  to  the  world,)  in  the  recording  of 
thefe  revelations ;  fo  far  as  that  was  Beceflary , 


6o 

amidft  the  common  (but  from  hence  termed 
facred)  hiftory  of  thofe  times  ;  and  mixed 
with  various  other  occurrences  ;  in  which 
the  hiftorian's  own  natural  qualifications 
were  fufficient  to  enable  him  to  relate  things, 
with  all  the  accuracy  they  required." — The 
paffage  from  St.  Auftin  is  this — "  I  am  of 
opinion,  that  thofe  men  to  whom  the  Holy 
Ghoft  revealed  what  ought  to  be  received  as 
authoritative  in  religion,  might  write  fome 
things  as  men  with  hiftorical  diligence,  and 
other  things  as  prophets  by  divine  infpiration  ; 
and  that  thefe  things  are  fo  diftinft,  that  the 
former  may  be  attributed  to  themfelves  as 
contributing  to  the  increafe  of  knowledge, 
and  the  latter  to  God  fpeaking  by  them  things 
appertaining  to  the  authority  of  religion." — 
Whether  this  opinion  be  right  or  wrong,  I 
do  not  here  enquire;  it  is  the  opinion  of  ma- 
ny learned  men  and  good  Chriftians:  and,  if 
you  will  adopt  it  as  your  opinion,  you  will 
fee  caufe,  perhaps,  to  become  a  Chriftian 
yourfelf ;  and  you  will  fee  caufe  to  confider 
chronological,  geographical,  or  genealogical 
errors — apparent  miftakes  or  real  contradic- 
tions as  to  hiftorical  fa&s — needlels  repeti- 
tions and  trifling  interpolations — indeed  you 
will  fee  caufe  to  confider  all  the  principal 
objedlionsof  your  book  to  be  abfoluteiy  with- 
out foundation.  Receive  but  the  Bible  as 
compoied  by  upright  and  well  informed, 
though,  in  Tome  points,  fallible  men,  (for  I 


6i 

exclude  all  fallibility  when  they  profcfs  to 
deliver  the  Word  of  God,  and  you  muft  re- 
ceive it  as  a  book  revealing  to  you,  in  many 
parts,  the  exprefs  will  of  God  ;  and  in  other 
parts,  relating  to  you  the  ordinary  hiitory 
of  the  times.  Give  but  the  authors  of  the 
Bible  that  credit  which  you  give  to  other 
hiftorians ;  believe  them  to  deliver  the  Word 
of  God,  when  they  tell  you  that  they  do  fo; 
believe,  when  they  relate  other  things  as  of 
themfclves  and  not  of  the  Lord,  that  they 
wrote  to  the  bell  of  their  knowledge  and  ca- 
pacity, and  you  will  be  in  your  belief  ibrne* 
thing  very  different  from  a  deift  :  you  may 
not  be  allowed  to  afpire  to  the  character  of  an 
orthodox  believer,  but  you  will  not  be  an 
unbeliever  in  the  divine  authority  of  the  Bi- 
ble ,  though  you  fliould  admit  human  mif- 
takes  and  human  opinions  to  exift  in  foine 
parts  of  it.  This  I  take  to  be  the  firft  ftep 
towards  the  removal  of  the  doubts  of  many 
fccptical  men  ;  and  when  they  are  advanced 
thus  far,  the  grace  of  God  affifting  a  teach- 
able diipofition,  and  a  pious  intention,  may 
carry  them  on  to  perfection. 

As  to  Ruth,  you  do  an  injury  to  her  cha- 
racter. She  was  not  a  {trolling  country  girl. 
She  had  been  married  ten  years;  and  being 
left  a  widow  without  children,  (he  accompa- 
nied her  mother-in-law,  returning  into  her 
native  country,  out  of  which  with  her  huf- 
F 


62 

band  and  her  two  fons  (he  had  been  driven  by 
a  famine.  The  difturbances  in  France  have 
driven  many  men  with  their  families  to  Ame- 
rica :  if,  ten  years  hence,  a  woman,  having 
loft  her  hufband  and  her  children,  fhould  re- 
turn to  France  with  a  daughter-  in  -law,  would 
you  be  juflified  in  calling  the  daughter-in-law 
a  {trolling  country  -girl? — "  but  (lie  crept  flily 
to  bed  to  her  couiin  Boaz,." — I  do  not  find  it 
in  the  hiflory- — as  a  perfon  imploring  pro- 
teftion,  fhe  laid  herfelf  down  at  the  foot  of 
an  aged  kiHfman's  bed,  and  fhe  rofe  up  with 
as  much  innocence  as  (he  had  laid  herfelf  do  wn, 
She  was  afterwards  married  to  Boaz,,  and  re- 
puted by  all  her  neighbours  a  virtuous  wo- 
man ;  and  they  were  more  likely  to  know  her 
character  than  you  are.  Whoever  reads  the 
book  of  Ruth,  bearing  in  mind  the  Simplicity 
of  ancient  manners,  will  find  it  an  interefl- 
ing  ftory  of  a  poor  young  woman,  following 
in  a  ftrange  land  the  advice,  and  affe&ion- 
ately  attaching  herfelf  to  the  fortunes  of  the 
mother  of  her  deceafed  hufband. 

THE  two  books  of  Samuel  come  next 
under  your  review. — You  proceed  to  (hew 
that  thefe  books  were  not  written  by  Sa- 
muel, that  they  are  anonymous,  and  thence 
you  conclude  without  authority.  I  need  not 
here  repeat  what  I  have  faid  upon  the  fallacy 
of  your  conclufion;  and  as  to  your  proving 
that  the  books  were  not  written  by  Samuel, 


you  might  have  fpared  yourfelf  fome  trouble 
if  you  had  recollefted,  it  is  generally  admit- 
ted,  that  Samuel  did  not  write  any  part  of 
the  fecond  book  which  bears  his  name,  and 
only  a  part  of  the  firft.  It  would,  indeed, 
have  been  an  enquiry  not  undeferving  your 
notice,  in  many  parts  of  your  work,  to  have 
examined  what  was  the  opinion  of  learned 
men  refpecting  the  authors  of  the  feveral 
books  of  the  Bible;  you  would  have  found, 
thai  you  were  in  many  places  fighting  a  phan- 
tom of  your  own  railing,  and  proving  what 
was  generally  admitted.  Very  little  certain- 
ty,  I  think,  can  at  this  time  be  obtained  on 
this  fubjeft  :  but  that  you  may  have  fome 
knowledge  of  what  has  been  conjeftured  by 
men  of  judgment,  I  will  quote  to  you  a  pai- 
'iage  from  Dr.  Hartley's  obiervations  on  man. 
The  author  himfelf  does  not  vouch  for  the 
truth  of  his  obfervation,  for  he  begins  it 
with  a  fuppofition. — "  I  fuppofe  then,  that 
the  Pentateuch  confifts  of  the  writings  of  Mo- 
fcs,  put  together  by  Samuel,  with  a  very  few 
additions  ;  that  the  books  of  jofhua  and 
Judges  were  in  like  manner  collected  by  him  ; 
and  the  book  of  Ruth,  with  the  firft  part* 
of  the  firft  book  of  Samuel,  written  by  him  ; 
that  the  latter  part  of  the  firft  book  of  Sa- 
muel, and  the  fecond  book,  were  written  by 
the  prophets  whofucceeded  Samuel,  fuppofe 
Nathan  and  Gad ;  that  the  books  of  Kings 
and  Chronicles,  are  extracts  from  the  records 


64 

of  the  fucceeding  prophets,  concerning  their 
own  times,  and  from  the  public  genealogical 
tables,  made  by  Ezra ;  that  the  books  of  Ez.- 
ra  and  Nehcmiah  are  collections  of  like  re- 
cords, feme  written  by  Ezra  and  Nchcmla h, 
and  feme  by  their  predeceiTors;  that  the  book 
of  Efther  was  written  by^fome  eminent  Jew, 
in  or  near  the  times  of  the  traruaction  there 
recorded,  perhaps  Mordccai\  the  book  of 
Job  by  a  Jew,  of  an  uncertain  time;  the 
Pfalms  by  David,  and  other  pious  perfons  ; 
the  books  of  Proverbs  and  Canticles  by  Solo- 
mon ;  the  book  of  Eccleiiaftes  by  Solomon,  or 
perhaps  by  a  Jew  of  later  times,  fpeaking  in 
his  perfon,  but  not  with  an  intention  to  make 
him  pafs  for  the  author  ;  the  prophefies  by 
the  prophets  whofe  names  they  bear;  and  the 
books  of  the  New  Teftament  by  the  perfons 
to  whom  they  are  ufually  afcribecl." — I  have 
produced  this  paiTage  to  you,  not  merely  to 
fhew  you  that,  in  a  great  part  of  your  work, 
you  are  attacking  what  no  perfon  is  intereft- 
ed  in  defending  ;  but  to  convince  you,  that 
a  wile  and  good  man,  and  a  firm  believer  in 
revealed  religion,  for  fuch  was  Dr.  Hartley, 
and  no  prieft,  did  not  rejcft  the  anonymous 
books  of  the  Old  Teftament  as  books  with- 
out authority.  I  lhall  not  trouble  either  you 
or  myfelf  with  any  more  obfervations  on 
that  head  ;  you  may  afcribe  the  two  books 
of  Kings,  and  the  two  books  of  Chronicles, 
to  what  authors  yon  pleafe ;  I  am  fatisfied 


65 

with  knowing  that  the1  annals  of  the  Jewifh 
nation  were  written  in  the  time  of  Samuel, 
and,  probably  in  all  fucceeding  times,  by  men 
of  ability,  who  lived  in  or  near  the  times  of 
which  they  write-  Of  the  truth  of  this  ob- 
fervation  we  have  abundant  proof,  not  only 
from  the  teftimony  of  Jofephus,  and  of  the 
writers  of  the  Talmuds,  but  from  the  Old 
Teftament  itfelf.  I  will  content  myfelf  with 
citing  a  few  places — "  Now  the  afts  of  Da- 
vid the  king,  firft  and  laft,  behold  they  are 
written  in  the  book  of  Samuel  the  leer,  and 
in  the  book  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in 
the  book  of  Gad  the  feer."  i  Chron.  xxix. 
29. — 4k  Now  the  reft  of  the  afts  of  Solomon, 
firft  and  laft,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book 
of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the  prophecy 
of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  and  in  the  vifions  of 
Iddo  the  feer  ?"  2  Chron.  ix.  29.— u  Now  the 
afts  of  Rehoboam,  firft  and  laft,  are  they  not 
written  in  the  book  of  Shemaiah  the  prophet,, 
and  of  Iddo  the  feer,  concerning  genealogies?'' 
2  Chron.  xii.  15. — "  Now  the  reft  of  the 
ads  of  Jehoftiaphat,  firft  and  laft,  behold 
they  are  written  in  the  book  of  Jehu  thefon 
of  Hanani."  2  Chron.  xx.  g^,.  Is  it  poffible 
for  writers  to  give  a  ftronger  evidence  of 
their  veracity,  than  by  referring  their  read- 
ers to  the  books  from  which  they  had  ex- 
tracted the  materials  of  their  hiftory  ? 

"  THE  twobooks  of  Kings,"  youfay,  "  arc 
little  more  than  an  hiftory  of  aflaffinations, 
F  2 


66 

treachery  and  war."  That  the  kings  of  Ifrael 
and  Judah  were  many  of  them  very  wicked 
perfons,  is  evident  from  thehiftory  which  is 
.given  of  them  in  the  Bible ;  but  it  ought  to 
be  remembered,  that  their  wickedneis  is  not 
to  be  attributed  to  their  religion ;  nor  were 
the  people  of  Ifrael  chofen  to  be  the  people  of 
God,  on  account  of  their  wickcdnefs;  nor 
was  their  being  cholen,  a  caufe  of  it.  One 
may  wonder,  indeed,  that,  having  experi- 
enced fo  many  fingular  marks  of  God's  good- 
uefs  towards  their  nation,  they  did  not  at 
once  become,  and  continue  to  be,  (what, 
however,  they  have  long  been,)  ftrenuous 
advocates  for  the  worfhip  of  one  only  God, 
the  maker  of  heaven  and  earth.  This  was 
the  purpofe  for  which  they  were  choien,  and 
this  purpofe  has  been  accomplished.  For 
above  three  and  twenty  hundred  years  the 
Jews  have  uniformly  witneiTed  to  all  the  na- 
tions "of  the  earth  the  unity  of  God,  and  his 
abomination  of  idolatry.  Bat  as  you  look 
upon  "  the  appellation  of  the  Jews  being 
God's  chafer,  people  as  a  lie  which  the  priefts 

and  leaders  of  the  lews  had  invented  to  co- 

»t 

ver  the  bafenefs  of  their  own  characters,  and 
which  chriitian  priefts,  ionic  times  as  corrupt, 
and  often  as  cruel,  have  profefl'ed  to  believe,'/ 
I  will  plainly  Hare  to  you  the  rcafons  which 
induce  uie  to  believe  that  it  is  no  //<?,  and  I 
hope  they  will  be  fuch  reafons  as  you  will 
not  attribute  either  to  cruelty  or  corruption. 


6? 

To  any  one  contemplating  theuniverfality 
of  things,  and  the  fabric  of  nature, .  thir,  globe 
of  earth, with  the  men  dwelling-  on  .  ^lur^ce, 
will  not  appear  (exelufive  of  the  dty&if&y  of 
their  fouls)  of  more  importance  fh?ri  an  hillock 
of  ants  ;  a:l  of  which,  fome  with  corn,  fbme 
with  ego;s,  fome  without  any  tiling,  run  hi- 
ther and  thither,  buftling  about  a  little  heap 
of  dull. — This  is  a  thought  of  the  immortal 
Bacon;  and  it  is  admirably  fitted  to  humble 
the  pride  of  philofophy,  attempting  to  pre- 
icribe  forms  to  the  proceedings,  and  bounds 
to  the  attributes  of  God.  We  may  as  eaiily 
circumfcribe  infinity,  as  penetrate  the  fecret 
purpofes  of  the  Almighty.  There  are  but 
two  ways  by  which  I  can  acquire  any  know- 
ledge of  the  nature  of  the  Supreme  Being, 
—  by  reafon,  and  by  revelation;  to  you, 
who  rejeft  revelation,  there  is  but  one.  Now 
my  reafon  informs  me,  that  God  lias  made  a 
great  difference  between  the  kinds  of  animals, 
with  -refpeft  to  their  capacity  of  enjoying 
happinefs.  Every  kind  is  peri  eft  in  its  or- 
der ;  but  if  we  compare  different  kinds  to- 
gether, one  will  appear  to  be  greatly  fuperi- 
or  to  another.  An  animal,  which  has  but 
one  fenfe,  has  but  one  fource  of  happinefs; 
but  if  it  be  fupplied  with  what  is  fuited  to 
that  fenfe,  it  enjoys  all  the  happinefs  of  which 
it  is  capable,  and  is  in  its  nature  perfect. 
Other  forts  of  animals,  which  have  two  or 
three  fenfes>  and  which  have  alfb  abundant 


68 

means  of  gratifying  ^them,  enjoy  twice  or 
thrice  as  much  happinefs  as  thoie  do  which 
have  but  one.  In  the  fame  fort  of  animals 
there  is  a  great  difference  amongft  individu- 
als, one  having  the  fenfes  more  perfeft,  and 
the  body  lefs  fubjeft  to  difeafe,  than  another. 
Hence,  if  I  were  to  form  a  judgment  of  the 
divine  goodnefs  by  this  ufe  of  my  reafon,  I 
could  not  but  fay  that  it  was  partial  and  un- 
equal.— "  What  fhall  we  fay  then  ?  is  God 
tinjuft?  God  forbid!"  His  goodnefs  may  be 
unequal,  without  being imperfeft ;  it  muft  be 
eftimated  from  the  whole  and  not  from  a  part. 
Every  order  of  beings  is  fo  fufficient  for  its 
own  happinefs,  and  fo  conducive  at  the  fame 
time  to  the  happinefs  of  every  other,  that  in 
one  view  it  feenis  to  be  made  for  itfelf  alone, 
and  in  another  not  for  itfelf  but  for  every 
other.  Could  we  comprehend  the  whole  of 
the  immenfe  fabric  which  God  hath  formed, 
I  am  perfuaded  that  we  fhould  fee  nothing  but 
perfe£tion,|frarmony,  and  beauty,  in  every 
part  of  it ;  but  whilft  we  difpute  about  parts, 
we  neglect  the  whole,  and  diicern  nothing  but 
fuppofed  anomalies  and  defects.  The  maker  of 
a  watch,  or  the  builder  of  a  (hip,  is  not  to  be 
blamed becaufe  afpe£lator  cannot  dilcover  ei- 
ther the  beauty  or  the  ufe  of  the  disjointing 
parts.  And  (hall  we  dare  to  accufe  God  of  in- 
juftice,  for  not  having  diftributed  the  gifts  of 
nature  in  the  fame  degree  to  all  kinds  of  ani- 
mals, when  it  is  probable  that  this  very  ine- 


69 

quality  of  diftribution  may  be  the  mean  of 
producing  the  greateft  fum  total  of  happinefs 
to  the  whole,  fyftem?  In  exactly  the  lame 
manner  may  we  reafon  concerning  the  a£ts 
of  God's  efpccial  providence.  If  we  coniider 
any  one  aft,  fuch  as  that  of  appointing  the 
Jews  to  be  his  peculiar  people,  as  unconneftd 
wich  every  other,  it  may  appear  to  be  u  par- 
tial difplay  of  his  goodnefs  ;  it  may  excite 
doubts  concerning  the  wifdorn  or  the  benig- 
nity of  his  divine  nature.  Bat  if  we  connect 
the  hiftory  of  the  Jews  with  that  of  other 
nations,  from  the  moft  remote  antiquity  to 
the  prefent  time,  we  {hall  difcover  that  they 
were  not  chofen  fo  much  for  their  own  be- 
nefit, or  on  account  of  their  own  merit,  as 
for  the  general  benefit  of  mankind.  To  the 
Egyptians,  Chaldeans,  Grecians,  Romans, 
to  all  the  people  of  the  earth,  they  were  for- 
merly, and  they  are  ftill  to  all  civilized  na- 
tions, a  beacon  fet  upon  an  hill,  to  warn  them 
from  idolatry,  to  light  them  to  the  fanftuary 
of  a  God,  holy,  juft,  and  good.  Why  fliould 
we  fufpedt  fuch  a  difpenfation  of  being  a  lit? 
when  even  from  the  little  which  we  can  un- 
derftand  of  it,  we  fee  that  it  is  founded  in 
wifdom,  carried  on  for  the  general  good, 
and  analogous  to  all  that  reafon  teaches  us 
concerning  the  nature  of  God. 

SEVERAL    things  you  obferye  are  men- 
tioned iu  the  book  of  the  Kings,  fuch  as  the 


7° 

drying  up  of  Jeroboam's  hand,  the  afcent  of 
Elijah  into  heaven,  the  deftruftion  of  the 
children  who  mocked  Elifha,  and  the  refur- 
rection  of  a  dead  man; — thefe  circumftances 
being  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Kings,  and 
not  mentioned  in  that  of  Chronicles,  is  a 
proof  to  you  that  they  are  lies.  I  efteem  it 
a  very  erroneous  mode  of  reafoning,  which, 
from  the  filence  of  one  author  concerning  a 
particular  circuinfiance,  infers  the  want  of 
veracity  in  another  wfco  mentions  it,  and  this 
obfervation  is  flill  more  cogent,  when  appli- 
ed to  a  bock  which  is  only  a  fupplement  to, 
or  an  abridgment  of  other  books  :  and  un- 
der this  defcription  the  book  of  Chronicles 
has  been  conildered  by  all  writers.  But 
though  you  will  not  believe  the  miracle  of 
the  drying  up  of  Jeroboam's  hand,  what  can 
you  fay  to  the  prophecy  which  was  then  de- 
livered concerning  the  future  deftruftion  of 
the  idolatrous  altar  of  Jereboam?  The  pro- 
phecy is  thus  written,  i  Kings,  xiii.  2. — 
"  Behold  a  child  fhall  be  born  unto  the  houfe 
of  David,  Joiiah  by  name,  and  upon  thee  (the 
altar)  fhal!  he  offer  the  priefts  of  the  high 
places." — Here  is  a  clear  prophecy ;  the  name, 
family,  and  office  of  a  particular  perlbn  are 
defcribed  in  year  975  (according  to  the  Bi- 
ble chronology)  before  Chrift.  Above  350 
years  after  the  delivery  of  the  prophecy,  you 
will  find,  by  confulting  the  fecond  book  of 


Kings,   (chap,  xxiii.  15,  16.)  this  prophecy 
fulfilled  in  all  its  parts. 

You  make  a  calculation  that  Genefis  was 
not  written  till  800  years  after  Mofes,  and 
that  it  is  of  the  fame  age,  and  you  may  pro- 
bably think  of  the  fame  authority,  as^Efop's 
Fables.  You  give,  what  you  call  the  evi- 
dence of  this,  the  air  of  a  demonftration — » 
44  It  has  but  two  flages: — firft,  the  account 
of  the  kings  of  Edom,  mentioned  in  Genefis, 
is  taken  froni  Chronicles*,  and  therefore  the 
book  of  Genefis  was  written  after  the  book  of 
Chronicles  : — iecondly,  the  book  of  Chroni- 
cles was  not  begun  to  be  written,  till  after 
Zedekiah,  in  whofe  time  Nebuchadnezzar 
conquered  Jerufalem,  588  years  before Chrift, 
and  more  than  860  after  Mofes." — Having 
anfwered  this  obje&ion  before^  I  might  be 
excufecl  taking  any  more  notice  of  it ;  but  as 
you  build  much,  in  this  place,  upon  the 
ftrength  of  your  argument,  I  will  fliew  you 
its  weaknefs,  when  it  is  properly  ftated. — A 
few  verfes  in  the  book  of  Genefis  could  not 
be  written  by  Mofes ;  therefore  no  part  of 
Genefis  could  be  written  by  Mofes : — a  child 
would  deny  your  therefore. — Again,  a  few 
verfes  in  the  book  of  Genefis  could  not  be 
written  by  Mojes,  bccaufe  they  fpeak  of 
kings  of  Ifreal,  there  having  been  no  kings 
of  Ifrael  in  the  time  of  Mofes;  and  therefore 
they  could  not  be  written  by  Samuel^  or  by 


72 

Solomon,  or  any  other  perfon  who  lived  af- 
ter there  were  kings  in  Ifrael,  except  by  the 
author  of  the  book  of  Chronicles  : — this  is 
alfo  an  illegitimate  inference  from  your  pofi- 
tion — Again  a  few  verfes  in  the  book  of  Ge- 
nefis  are,  word  for  word  the  fame  as  a  few 
verfes  in  the  book  of  Chronicles ;  therefore 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Genefis  muft  have 
taken  them  from  Chronicles: — another  lame 
conclufion  !  Why  might  not  the  author  of 
the  book  of  Chronicles  have  taken  them 
from  Genefis,  as  he  has  taken  many  other 
genealogies,  fuppofing  them  to  have  been  5n- 
ferted  in  Genefis  by  Samuel?  But  where,  you 
may  afk,  could  Samuel  or  any  other  perfon, 
have  found  the  account  of  the  kings  of  E- 
dom  ?  Probably^  in  the  public  records  of  the 
nation,  which  were  certainly  as  open  for  in- 
fpeftion  to  Samuel,  and  the  other  prophets, 
as  they  were  to  the  author  of  Chronicles.  I 
hold  it  needlefs  to  employ  more  time  on  the 
fubjeft. 


LETTER    V. 


A 


LT  length  you  come  to  two  books,  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  which  you  will  allow  to  be 
genuine  books,  giving  an  account  of  the  re- 
turn of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity, about  536  years  before  Chrift ;  but 
then  you  fay,  "  Thofe  accounts  are  nothing 
to  us,  nor  to  any  other  perfons  unlefs  it  be 
to  the  Jews,  as  a  part  of  the  hiftory  of  their 
nation  ;  and  there  is  juft  as  much  of  the 
Word  of  God  in  thofe  books,  as  there  is  in 
any  of  the  Hiflories  of  France,  or  in  Rapin's 
hiftory  of  England."  Here  let  us  ftop  a  mo- 
ment, and  try  if  from  your  own  conceffions 
it  be  not  poffible  to  confute  your  argument. 
Er&ra  and  Nehemiah,  you  grant,  are  genuine 
.books-*-"  but  they  are  nothing  to  us !"  The 
very  firft  verte  of  Ezra  lays — -the  prophecy 
of  Jeremiah  was  fulfilled ; — is  this  nothing  to 
us,  to  know  that  Jeremiah  was  a  true  pro* 
phet?  Do  but  grant  that  the  Supreme  iieing 
G 


•74 

communicated  to  any  of  the  fens  of  men -a 
knowledge  of  future  events,  fo  that  their 
predictions  were  plainly  verified,  and  you 
will  find  little  difficulty  in  admitting  the 
truth  of  revealed  religion.  Is  it  nothing  to 
us  to  know  that,  five  hundred  and  thirty-fix 
years  before  Chrift,  the  books  of  Chronicles, 
Kings,  Judges,  Jofhua,  Deuteronomy,  Num- 
bers, Leviticus,  Exodus,  Genefis,  every  book 
the  authority  of  which  you  have  attacked, 
are  all  referred  to  by  Eira  and  Nehemiah,  as 
authentic  books,  containing  the  hiftory  of 
the  Ifraelitifh  nation  from  Abraham  to  the 
very  time?— -Is  it  nothing  to  us  to  know  that 
the  hiftory  of  the  Jews  is  true?-r- It  is  every 
thing  to  us  ;  for  if  that  hiftory  be  not  true, 
Chriftianity  muft  be  falfe.  The  Jews  are  the 
root,  we  are  branches  4;  grafted  in  amongft 
them;"  to  them  pertain  "  the  adoption,  and 
the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving 
of  the  law,  and  the  fervice  of  God,  and  the 
promifes  ;  whofe  are  the  fathers,  and  of 
whom,  as  concerning  the  flefh,  Chrift  came, 
.who  is  over  all,  God  bleiTed  for  ever.  Amen.'7 

THE  hiftory  of  the  Old  Teftament  has, 
without  doubt,  feme  difficulties  in  it ;  but  a 
minute  philofopher,  who  bufics  himfelf  in 
fearching  them  out,  wfailft  he  neglefts  to 
contemplate  the  harmony  of  all  its  parts, 
the  wifdom  and  goodnefs  of  God  difplayed 
.throughout  the  whole,  appears  to  me  to  be 


75 

like  a  purblind  man',  who,  In  furveying  a 
pi&ure,  objeds  to  the  fimplicity  of  the  de- 
iign,  and  the  beauty  of  the  execution,  from 
the  afperities  he  has  difcovered  in  the  canvas 
and  the  colouring.  The  hiftory  of  the  Old 
Teftament,  notwithstanding  the  real  difficul- 
ties which  occur  in  it,  notwithstanding  the 
feoffs  and  cavils  of  unbelievers,  appears  to 
me  to  have  fuch  internal  evidences  of  its 
truth,  to  be  fo  corroborated  by  the  moft  an- 
cient profane  hiftories,  fo  confirmed  by  the 
prefent  circumftances  of  the  world,  that  if  I 
were  not  a  Chriftian,  I  would  become  a  Jew. 
You  think  this  hiftory  to  be  a  colleftion  of 
lies,  contradictions,  blafphemies  :  I  look  up- 
on it  to  be  the  oldeft,  the  trueft,  the  mofh 
comprehenfive,  and  the  moft  important  hif- 
tory in  the  world.  I  confider  it  as  giving 
more  fatisfa£tory  proofs  of  the  being  and  at- 
tributes of  God,  of  the  origin  and  end  of  hu- 
man kind,  than  ever  was  attained  by  the. 
deepeft  refearches  of  the  moft  enlightened 
philofophers.  The  exercife  of  our  reafon  in 
the  inveftigation  of  truths  refpe&ing  the  na- 
ture of  God,  and  the  future  expectations  of 
human  kind,  is  highly  ufeful ;  but  I  hope  I 
{hall  be  pardoned  by  the  metaphyficians  in 
faying  that  the  chief  utility  of  fuch  difqui- 
fit  ions  confifts  in  this — that  they  bring  us  ac- 
quainted with  the  weakriefs  of  our  intellectu- 
al faculties.  I  do  not  prefume  to  meafure 
other  men  by  my  liandard ;  you  may  have 


76 

clearer  notions  than  I  am  able  to  form  of  the 
infinity  of  fpace ;  of  the  eternity  of  duration ; 
of  neceffary  exiftence ;  of  the  connexion  be- 
tweeri  neceffary  exiftence  and  intelligence; 
between  intelligence  and  benevolence  :  you 
may  fee  nothing  in  the  univerfe  but  organ- 
ised matter  ;  or,  rejecting  a  material,  you 
may  fee  nothing  but  an  ideal  world.  With 
a  mind  weary  of  conjecture,  fatigued  by 
doubt,  fick  of  difputation,  eager  for  know- 
ledge, anxious  for  certainty,  and  unable  to 
Attain  it  by  the  beft  ufe  of  my  reafon  in  mat- 
ters of  the  utmoft  importance,  I  have  long 
ago  turned  my  thoughts  to  an  impartial  exa- 
mination of  the  proofs  on  which  revealed  re- 
ligion is  grounded,  and  I  am  convinced  of  its 
truth.  This  examination  is  a  fubjeft  within 
the  reach  of  human  capacity ;  you  have  gome 
to  one  conclufion  rcfpefting  it,  I  have  come  to 
another  ;  both  of  us  cannot  be  right ;  may 
God  forgive  him  that  is  in  an  error. 

You  ridicule,  in  a  note,  the  ftory  of  an 
angel  appearing  to  Jofhua.  Your  mirth  you 
will  perceive  to  be  mifplaced,  when  you  con- 
fider  the  defign  of  this  appearance;  it  was  to 
affure  Jofhua,  that  the  fame  God  who  had 
appeared  to  Mofes,  ordering  him  to  pull  off 
his  (hoes,  becaufe  he  flood  on  holy  ground, 
had  now  appeared  to  himfelf.  Was  this  no  en- 
couragement to  a  man  who  was  about  to  en- 
gage in  war  with  many  nations  ?  Had  it  no 


77 

tendency  to  confirm  his  faith?  Was  it  n<a 
leffbn  to  him  to  obey,  in  all  things,  the  com- 
mands of  God,  and  to  give  the  glory  of  his 
conquefts  to  the  author  of  them,  the  God  of 
Abraham,  Ifaac  and  Jacob  ?  As  to  your  wit 
about  pulling  off  the  fhoe,  it  originates,  I 
think,  in  your  ignorance;  you  ought  to 
have  known,  that  this  rite  was  an  indicati- 
on of  reverence  for  the  divine  prefence  ;  and 
that  the  cuftom  of  "entering  barefoot  into 
their  temples  fubfifts,  in  ibme  countries,  to 
this  day. 

You  allow  the  book  of  Ezra  to  be  a  genii  s*- 
ine  book  :  but  that  the  author  of  it  may  not 
efcape  without  a  blow,  you  fay,  that  in  mat- 
ters of  record  it  is  not  to  be  depended  on,, 
and  as  a  proof  of  your  affertion,  you  tell  us 
that  the  total  amount  of  the  numbers  who 
returned  from  Babylon  does  not  correfpond 
with  the  particulars  ;  and  that  every  child 
may  have  an  argument  for  its  infidelity,  you 
difplay  the  particulars,  and  ihew  your  own 
fkill  in  arithmetic,  by  fumming  them  up. 
And  can  you  fuppofe  that  Ezra,  a  man  of 
great  learning,  knew  fo  little  of  fcience,  fb 
little  of  the  lowed  branch  of  fcience,  that  he 
could  not  give  his  readers  the  fum  total  of 
fixty  particular  fums  ?  You  know,  undoubt- 
edly, that  the  Hebrew  letters  denoted  alfo 
numbers ;  and  that  there  was  fuch  a  great  il- 
milarity  between  fome  of  thefe  letters,  thafc 
G  2 


78 

it  was  extremely  eafy  for  a  tranfcriber  of  a 
manufcript  to  miftake  a  3  for  3  (or  2  for 
20)  a  a  for  a  3  (or  3  for  50),  a  ->  for  a  *j  (or 
4*  for  200).  Now  what  have  we  to  do 
with  numerical  contradictions  in  the  Bible, 
but  to  attribute  them,  wherever  they  occur, 
to  this  obvious  fource  of  error — the  inatten- 
tion of  the  tranfcriber  in  writing  one  letter 
for  another  that  was  like  it  ? 

I  SHOULD  extend  thefe  letters  to  a  length 
troublefome  to  the  reader,  to  you,  and  to  my- 
felf,  if  I  anfwered  minutely  every  obje&ion 
you  have  made,  and  rectified  every  error  in- 
to which  you  have  fallen  ;  it  may  befuffici- 
cnt  briefly  to  notice  fome  of  the  chief. 

THE, chara&er  reprefented  in  Job  under 
the  name  of  Satan  is,  you  fay,  "  the  firfl  and 
only  time  this  name  is  mentioned  in  the  Bi- 
ble." Now  I  find  this  name,  as  denoting  an 
enemy,  frequently  occurring  in  the  Old  Tef- 
tament;  thus  2  Sam.  xix.  22.  "  What  have 
I  to  do  with  you,  ye  fons  of  Zeruiah,  that 
ye  fliould  this  day  be  adverfaries  unto  me  ?" 
In  the  original  it  is  fatans  unto  me.  Again, 
j  Kings  v.  4.  "  The  Lord  my  God  hath 
given  me  reft  on  every  fide,  fo  that  there  is 
neither  adverfary,  nor  evil  occurrent" — 
in  the  original  neither  fatan  nor  evil.  I  need 

*  By  fome  mifiake,  probably  of  the  prefs,  this  is  a  figure 
tf  j  in  the  Englijh  Edition,  American  Publisher, 


not  mention  other  places  ;  thefe  are  fuffici- 
ent  to  fhew,  that  the  word  fatan,  denoting 
an  adverfary,  does  occur  in  various  places  of 
the  Old  teftament ;  and  it  is  extremely  pro- 
bable to  me,  that  the  root  fatan  has  intro- 
duced in  the  Hebrew  and  other  eaftern  lan- 
guages, to  denote  an  adverfary,  from  its  hav- 
ing been  the  proper  name  of  the  great  ene- 
my of  mankind.  I  know  it  is  an  opinion  of 
Voltaire,  that  the  word  fatan  is  not  older 
than  the  Babylonian  captivity  :  this  is  amif- 
take^  for  it  is  met  with  in  the  hundred  and 
ninth  Pfalm,  which  all  allow  to  be  written 
by  David,  long  before  the  captivity.  Now* 
we  are  upon  this  fubjeft,  permit  me  to  re- 
commend to  your  confideration  theuniver- 
fality  of  the  doctrine  concerning  an  evil  be- 
ing, who  in  the  beginning  of  time  had  oppof- 
himfelf,  who  ft  ill  continues  to  oppofe  him- 
felf,  to  the  fupreme  fource  of  all  good. — 

'   -  ^a*****-  fm  •..-..-  .  ••  . 

Amongft  all  nations,  in  all  ages,  tins  opinion 
prevailed,  that  human  affairs  were  fubjeft  to 
the  will  of  the  gods,  and  regulated  by  their 
interpofition.  Hence  has  been  derived  what- 
ever we  have  read  of  the  wandering  ftars  of 
the  Chaldeans,  two  of  them  beneficent,  and 
two  malignant— hence  the  Egyptian  Typhj 
and  0 fir  is-*- -the  Perfian  Arimanius  and  Oro- 
"""  majdcs- — the  Grecians  ccleftial  and  infernal 
Jove — the  J5nz#2#  and  the  Zupay  of  the  In- 
dians, Peruvians,  Mexicans — the  good  and 
evil  principle,  by  whatever  names  they  may  / 

N*.  '  «**  *****"•  ^Jr.- 


go 

be  called,  of  all  other  barbarous  nations — and 
hence  the   ftrudlure   of  the  whole   book  of 
Job,  in  whatever  light,  of  hiilory  or  drama, 
it  be  confidered.     Now    does  it    not  appear 
reafonable  to  fuppoie,  that  an  opinion  fo  an- 
cient and  fo  univrrfal  has  arh'en  from  tradi- 
tion concerning  the  fall  of  our  iirft  parents  ; 
disfigured  indeed,  and  obieured,  as  a;l  tradi- 
i      tions  mud  be, by  many  fabulous  additions  ? 

Jr  THE  Jews,  you  tell  us,  "  never  prayed  but 
when  they  were  in  trouble."  I  do  not  be- 
lieve this  of  the  Jews;  but  that  they  prayed 
more  fervently  when  they  were  in  trouble, 
than  at  any  other  times,  may  be  true  of  the 
Jews,  and  I  apprehend  is  true  of  all  nations 
and  all  individuals  — -  But  "  the  Jews  never 
prayed  for  any  thing  but  victory,  vengeance, 
and  riches," — Head  Solomon's  prayer  at  the 
dedication  of  the  temple,  and  biufh  for  your 
affertion, — illiberal  and  uncharitable  in  the 
extreme ! 

IT  appears,  you  obferve,  "  to  have  been 
the  cuftom  of  the  heathens  to  perfonify  both 
virtue  and  vice,  by  flatties  and  images,  as  is 
done  now-a-daysbothbyftatuary  and  by  paint- 
ing :  but  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that 
they  worftiipped  them  any  more  than  we 
do."  Not  worshipped  them  !  What  think 
you  of  the  golden  image  which  Nebuchad- 
nezzar fet  up  ?  Was  it  not  worfhipped  by 
the  princes,  the  rulers,  the- judges,  the  peo- 


81 

pie,  the  nations^  and  the  languages  of  the' 
Babylonian  empire  ?  Not  worlhipped  them  ! 
What  think  you  of  the  decree  of  the  Roman 
fenate  for  fetching  the  ftatue  of  the  mother 
of  the  gods  from  P'effrnum  ?  Was  it  only  that 
they  might  admire  it  as  a  piece  of  workman- 
(liip  ?  Not  worfhipped  them  !  "  What  man  is 
there  that  knoweth  not  how  that  the  city  of 
theEphefians  was  a  wor&ipper  of  the  great 
goddefs  Diana,  and  of  the  image  which  fell  J 
down  from  Jupiter  ?""  Not  worlhipped  them! 
—The  worfhip  was  univerfal.  ,4b  Every  na- 
tion made  gods  of  their  own,  and  put  them 
In'the  houfes  of  the  high  places,  which  the 
Samaritans  had  made— the  men  of  Babylon 
made  Succoth-benoth,  and  the  men  of  Guth 
made  Nergal,  and  the  men  of  Ha  math  Jpiade 
Afhima,  and  the  Avites  made  Nibh'azr  and 
Tartak,  and  the  Sepharvites  burned  their 
children  in  fire  to  Adrammelech,  and  Anam- 

fWfSrf!5^ 

melech,  the  gods  of  Sepharvaim."  (2  Kings, 
chap*  xvii.)  The  heathens  are  much  in- 
debted to  you  for  this  curious  apology  for 
their  idolatry ;  for  a  mode  of  worlhip  the 
mod  cruel,  fenfelefs,  impure,  abominable, 
that  can  poffible  difgrace  the  faculties  ot  the 
human  mind.  Had  this  your  conceit,  occur- 
red in  ancient  times,  it  might  have  faved 
Micah^s  teraphims  the  golden  calves  of  Je- 
roboam, and  of  Aaron,  and  quite  fuperceded 
the  neceflity  of  thefecond  commandment !!  ! 
Heathen  moralitv  has  had  its  advrocates  be- 


82 

fore  you;  the  facetious  gentleman  Who  pul- 
led off  his  hat  to  the  ftatue  of  Jupiter,  that 
he  might  have  a  friend  when  heathen  idola- 
try fliould  again  be  in  repute,  feems  to  have 
had  fome  foundation  for  his  improper  hu- 
mour, fbme  knowledge  that  certain  men 
efteeming  themfelves  great  philoibphers  had 
entered  into  a  confpiracy  to  abolifh  Chrifti- 
anity,  fome  forefight  of  the  confequences 
which  will  certainly  attend  their  fuccefs. 

IT  is  an  error,  you  fay,  td  call  the  Pfalms 
—the  Pfalrns  of  David. — This  error  was  ob- 
ferved  by  St.  Jerome,/  many  hundred  years 
before  you  were  born  ;  his  words  are— "  We 
know  that  they  are  in  an  error  who  attri- 
bute all  the  Pfalms  to  David/' — 'You,  I  fup- 
pofe,  will  not  deny,  that  David  wrote  fome 
of  them.  Songs  are  of  various  forts;  we 
have  hunting  fongs,  drinking  fongs,  fighting 
fongs,  love  fongs,  foolifh,  wanton,  wicked 
fongs  i — if  you  will  have  the  "  Pialms  of 
David  to  be  nothing  but  a  collection  from 
the  different  fong-writers,"  you  muft  allow 
that  the  writers  of  them  were  infpired  by  no 
ordinary  fpirit ;  that  it  is  a  collection,  incapa- 
ble of  being  degraded  by  the  name  you  give 
it;  that  it  greatly  excels  every  other  col- 
lection in  matter  and  in  manner.  Compare 
the  book  of  Pialms  wkh  the  odes  of  Horace 
or  Anacreon,  with  the  hymns  of  Calimachus, 
the  golden  verfes  of  Pythagoras,  the  chorufes 


of  the  Greek  tragedians,  (no  contemptible 
compofitions  ajiy  of  thefe,)  and  you  will 
quickly  fee  how  greatly  it  furpaffes  them  all, 
in  piety  of  fentiment,.  in  fublimity  of  ex- 
•preflion,  in  purity  of  morality,  and  in  ra- 
tional theology. 

As  you  efteem  the  Pfalms  of  David  a  fong 
book,  it  is  confident  enough  in  you  to  efteern 
the  Proverbs  of  Solomon  a  jeft  book;  there 
have  not  come  down  to  us  above  eight  hun- 
dred of  his  jefts:  if  we  had  the  whole  three 
thoufand,  which  he  wrote,  our  mirth  would 
become  extreme.  Let  us  open  the  book,  and 
fee  what  kind  of  jefts  it  contains  ;  take  the 
very  firft  as  a  fpecimen — "  The  fear  of  the 
Lord  is  the  beginning  of  knowledge ;  but  fools 
defpife  wifdom  and  inftruttion." — Do  you 
perceive  any  jeft  in  this  ?  Thefear  of  the  Lord ! 
What  Lord  does  Solomon  mean  ?  He  means 
thut  Lord  who  took  the  pofterity  of  Abra- 
ham to  be  his  peculiar  people — who  redeemed 
that  people  from  Egyptian  bondage  by  a  mira- 
culous interpolation  of  his  power — who  gave 
the  law  to  Mofes — who  commanded  the  If- 
raelites  to  exterminate  the  nations  of  Canaan. 
— Novvr  this  Lord  you  will  not  fear  ;  the  jeft 
fays,  you  defpife  wifdom  and  inftruclioiK — 
Let  us  try  again — "  My  fon,hear  the  inftruc- 
tion  of  thy  father,  and  forfakc  not  the  law 
of  thy  mother." — If  your  heart  has  been  evey 


84 

touched  by  parental  feelings,  you  will  fee  no 
jeft  in  this. — Once  more — "  My  fon,  if  fin- 
ners  entice  thee,  content  thou  not." — Theft 
are  the  three  fir.ft  proverbs  in  Solomon's  "  jefl 
book ;"  if  you  read  it  through ,  it  may  not  make 
you  merry;  I  hope  it  will  make  you  wife;  that 
it  will  teach  you,  at  It  aft,  the  beginning  of  wif- 
dom— -  the  fear  of  that  Lord,  whom  Solomon 
feared.  Solomon,  you  tell  us,  was  witty;  jeft- 
ers  are  fometimes  witty,  but  though  all  the 
world,  from  the  time  of  the  queen  of  Sheba,has 
heard  of  the  wifdom  of  Solomon,  his  wit  was 
never  heard  of  before.  There  is  a  great  dif- 
ference, Mr.  Locke  teaches  us,  between  wit 
and  judgment,  and  there  is  a  greater  between 
wit  and  wifdom.  Solornon  *'•*  was  wifer  than 
Ethan  the  Ez-atute,  and  Heman,  and  Chaleol, 
,and  Darda,  the  fons  of  Mahol." — Tfcefe  mei> 
you  may  tjiink  jefters ;  and  fo  may  you  call 
the  fevec  wife  nien  of  Greece  :  but  you  will 
never  convince  the  world  that  Solomon, 
who  was  wifer  than  them  all,  was  nothing 
but  a  wkty  'je.fter,  As  to  the  fins  and  debau- 
cheries of  Solomon,  we  have  nothing  to  do 
with  them  but  to  .avoid  them  ;  and  to  give 
full  credit  to  his  experience,  when, he  preach- 
es to  us  his  admirable  iermon  on  the  ya^ity 
:of  every  thing 'but  piety  and  virtue. 

ISAIAH  'has  a  greater  fhare  of  your  abuft 
than  any  other  writer  in  the  Old  Teitament, 
the  reafon  of  it  is, obvious— the  prophe^ 


8  :> 

.  :  of  liai'cih  liave  received  fuch  a  full  and 
circumltantial  completion,  that  unlefs  you 
can .  pcrili ad e  yourfelf  to  coniidcr  the  whole 
book  (a  few  hiftorical  (ketches  excepted)  i;  as 
one  continued  bombaftical  rant,  full  of  ex- 
travagant metaphor,  without  application, 
and  deftitute  of  meaning,"  you  muft  of  ne- 
.ccfiity  allow  its  divine  authority.  You  com- 
pare the  burden  of  Babylon,  the  burden  of 
Moab,  the  burden  of  Damafcus,  and  the  other 
denunciations  of  the  prophet  againft  cities 
and  kingdoms,  to  the  ilory  "  of  the  knight  of 
the  burning  mountain,  the  ftory  "ofCinderil- 
la..&c."  Imay  have  read  thefe  dories, but  I  re- 
member nothing  of  the  fubjefts  of  them  ;  I 
have  read  alfoliaiah's  burden  of  Baby  Ion,  and 
I  have  compared  it  with  the  pail  and  prefent 
date  of  Babylon,  and  the  comparifon  has 
made  fuch  an  irnpreffion  on  my  mind,  that  it 
will  never  be  effaced  from  my  memory.  I 
fhall  never  ceafe  to  believe  that  the  Eternal 
alone,  by  whom  things  future  are  more  dif- 
iiidly  known  than  pad  or  prefent  things  are 
to  man,  that  the  eternal  God  alone  could 
have  diftated  to  the  prophet  Ifaiah  the  fub- 
je£t  of  the  burden  of  Babylon. 

THE  latter  part  of  the  forty -fourth  and 
the  beginning  of  the  forty-fifth  chapter  of 
Ifaiah,  are,  in  your  opinion,  fo  far  from  be- 
ing written  by  Ifaiah,  that  they  could  only 
have  been  written  by  fome  perfon  who  lived 
at  lead  an  hundred  and  fifty  years  after 
II 


86" 

Ifaiah  Was  dead: — thefe  chapters,  you  go  on, 
"  are  a  compliment  to  Cyrus,  who  permitted 
the  Jews  to  return  to  Jerufalem  from  the 
Babylonian  captivity  above  an  hundred' and 
fifty  years  after  the  death  of  Ifaiah  :"— and 
is  it  for  this,  Sir,  that  you  accufe  the  church 
of  audacity  and  the  priefts  of  ignorance,  In 
impofing,  as.  you  call  it,  this  book  upon  the 
world  as  the  writing  of  Ifaiah  ?  What  (hall 
be  laid  of  you,  who,  either  defignedly  or  ig- 
norantly,  reprefent  one  of  the  mod  clear  and 
important  prophecies  in  the  Bible,  as  an  hif- 
torical  compliment,  written  above  an  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  the 
prophet  ?— We  contend,  Sir,  that  this  is  a 
prophecy  and  not  an  hiftory  ;  that  God  call- 
ed Cyrus  by  his  name  ;  declared  that  he  fhould 
conquer  Babylon  ;  and  defcribed  the  means 
by  which  he  fhould  do  it,  above  an  hundred 
years  before  Cyrus  was  born,  and  when  there 
was  no  probability  of  fuch  an  event.  Por- 
phyry could  not  refift  the  evidence  of  Dani- 
el's  prophecies,  but  by  faying,  that  they  v/ere 
forged  after  the  events  predicted  had  taken 
place  ;  Voltaire  could  not  refift  the  evidence 

of  the  prediction  of  ^c/us,    concerning  the 
-*  i   n       r>  •  ~-*~--;rv'       r  i     *#*?•**    i       r*****™**™  , 
deitrucuon  or  leruialein,  but  by  laying;,  that 

«.  dVMMMJBMM**-  **         W%BP^*****^  ,/  •/  O.  ' 

the  account  was  written  after  Jerufalem  had 
been  deftroyed  ;  and  you  at  length,  (though, 
for  aught  I  know,  you  may  have  had  pre- 
deceffors  in  this  prefumption,)  unable  to  re- 
fift the  ev id; nee  of  Ijaialis  prophecies,  con* 


tend  that  they  are  bombaftical  rant,  without 
application,  though  the  application  is  cir- 
cumftantial ;  and  deftittUe  of  meaning,  though 
the  meaning  is  fo  obvious,  that  it  cannot  be 
miflaken;  and  that  one  of  the  rn oft  remark- 
able of  them,  is  not  a  prophecy  but  an  hifto- 
rical  compliment  written  after  the  event. 
We  will  not,  Sir,  give  up  Daniel  and  St. 
Matthew,  to  the  impudent  aflertions  of  Por- 
phyry and  Voltaire,  nor  will  we  give  up 
Ifaiah  to  your  afifertion.  Proof,  proof  is 
what  we  require,  and  not  affertion  ;  we  will 
not  relinquish  our  religion,  in  obedience  to 
your  abufive  aflertion  refpefting  the  pro- 
phets of  God.  That  the  wonderful  abfurdi- 
ty  of  this  hypothefis  may  be  more  obvious 
to  you,  I  beg  you  to  confider  that  Cyrus  was, 
a  Perfian,  had  been  brought  up  in  the  religi- 
'  on  of  his  country,  and  was  probably  addidted 
to  the  magian  iupcrftition  of  two  indepen- 
dent Beings,  equal  in  power  but  different  hu^* 
principle,  one  the  author  of  light  and  of  all 

*  .  A  '  ,  ,-•  -.-,._  ,    ,-  &  ,-:,  • 

good,  the  other  the  author  of  darknefs  and 
all  evil.  Now  is  it  probable  that  a  captive 
Jew,  meaning  to  compliment  the  greateit 
prince  in  the  world,  fhould  be  fo  ftupid  as 
to  tell  the  prince  his  religion  was  a  lie?  4jQ[ 
am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none  elie,  I  form, 
the  light,  aiid  create  dafltncjs,  I  make  peace 
and  create  evil?  I  the 'Lord  do  all  the.o 
things."  "*'  '  i»ii"» 


BUT  if  you  will  pcr&vere  in  believing  that 
the  prophecy  concerning  Cyrus  was  written 
after  the  event,  peruie  the  burden  of  Baby- 
lon ;  was  that  alfo  written  after  the  event  ? 
"Were  the  Modes  then  ftirred  up  againft  Ba- 
bylon? Was  Babylon,  the  glory  of  the  king- 
doms, the  beauty  of  the  Chaldees.  then  over- 
thrown, and  become  as  Sodom  -and  Gomor- 
rah ?  Was  it  then  uninhabited  ?  Was  it  then 
neither  fit  for  the  Arabian's  tent  nor  the 
fhepherd's  fold?-  Did  the  wild  beafts  of  the 
deiert  then  lie  there  ?  Did  the  wild  beafts  of 
the  iflands  then  cry  in  their  defolate  houfes, 
and  dragons  hi  their  pleafant  palaces?  Wen* 
Nebuchadnezzar  and  Bel/hazz/ar,  the  ion  and 
the  grandfoti,  then  cut  off?  Was  Babylon 
then  become  a  poffeffion  of  the  bittern,  ipd 
pools  of  water?  Was  it  then  Iwept  \viv.b 
the  befom  of  deftruftion,  fo  fwept  that  the 
world  knows  not  now  whtre  to  find  it  ? 


I  arn  unwilling  to  attribute  bad 
deliberate  wickednefs,  to  you  or  to  any  man  ; 
I  cannot  avoid  believing,  that  you  think  you 
have  truth  on  your  iide,  and  that  you  are 
doing  fervice  to  mankind  in  endeavoring  to 
root  out  what  you  efteem  fuperftition.  What 
I  blame  you  for  is  this  —  that  you  have  at- 
tempted  to  leffen  the  authority  of  the  Bible 
by  ridicule,  more  than  by  reafon  ;  that  you 
have  brought  forward  every  petty  objection 
which  your  ingenuity  could  diicover,  or 


your  induftry  pick  up,  from  the  writings  of 
others  ;  and  without  taking  notice  cf  the  an- 
fwers  which  have  been  repeatedly  given  to 
thefe  objections,  you  urge  and  enforce  them 
as  if  they  were  new.  There  is  certainly  fome 
novelty,  at  lead  ia  your  manner,  for  you  go- 
beyond  all  others  in  boldnefs  of  afiertion, 
and  in  profanenefs  of  argumentation  ;  Boling- 
broke  and  Voltaire  muft  yield  the  palm  of 
fcurrility  to  Thomas  Paine. 

PERMIT  me  to  (late  to  you,  what  would 
In  my  opinion,  have  been  a  better  mode  of 
proceeding;  better  fuitcd  to  the  character  of 
an  honeft  man,  fin  cere  in  his  endeavours  to 
fearch  out  truth.  Such  a  man,  in  reading 
the  Bible,  would,  in  the  firft  place,  examine 
whether  the  Bible  attributed  to  the  Su- 
preme Being  any  attributes  repugnant  to  ho- 
linefs,  truth,  juflice,  goodnefs;  whether  it 
reprefented  him  as  fubjeft  to  human  infirmi- 
ties ;  whether  it  excluded  him  from  the  go- 
vernment of  (he  world,  or  affigned  the  ori- 
gin of  it  to  chance,  and  an  eternal  conflict  of 
atoms.  Finding  nothing  of  this  kind  in  the 
Bible,  (for  the  deftruftion  of  the  Cafiaanites- 
by  his  cxprefs  command,  I  have  fhewn  not 
to  be  repugnant  to  his  moral  juftice,)  he 
Would,  in  the  feeond  place,  confider 'that  the' 
Bible  being  as  to  many  of  ito  parts,  a  very 
old  book,  and  written  by  various  authors,, 
and  at  different  and  diftant  periods, 

II     2 


might,  probably,  occur  fome  difficulties  and 
apparent  contradictions  in  the  hiftorical  part 
of  it  ;  he  would  endeavor  to  remove  thefe 
difficulties,  to  reconcile  thefe  apparent  con- 
traditions,  by  the  rules  of  fuch  found  criti- 
cifm  as  he  would  ufe  in  examining  the  con- 
tents of  any  other  book  ;  and  if  he  found  that 
moft  of  them  were  of  a  trifling  nature,  arif- 
ing  from  fhort  additions  inferted  into  the 
text  as  explanatory  and  fupplemental,  or 
from  miftakes  and  omiifions  of  transcribers^ 
lie  would  infer  that  all  the  reft  were  capa- 
ble of  being  accounted  for,  though  lie  was; 
not  able  to  do  it ;  and  he  would  be  the  more 
Mailing  to  make  this  conceffion^  from  ob~ 
ferving,  that  there  ran  through  the  whole 
book  an  harmony  and  connection,  utterly  in- 
eonflftent  with  every  idea  of  forgery  and  de- 
ceit. He  would  then,  in  the  third  place,, 
©bferve,  that  the  miraculous  and  hiftorical 
parts  of  this  book  were  fo  intermixed,  that 
they  could  not  be  Separated  ;  and  that  they 
muft  either  both  be  true,  or  both  falfe  ;  and 
from  finding  that  the  hiftorical  part  was  as 
•well  or  better  authenticated  than  that  of  any- 
other  hiftory,  h€  would  admit  the  miracu- 
lous part  ;  and  to  con  firm  h  inifelf  rn  this  be- 
lief he  would  advert  to  the  prophecies';  welt 
knowing  that  the  prediction  of  things  to 
come,,  was.  as  certain  a  proof  of  the  divine 
Interposition,.  a:s  the  perfbrnnance  of  a  mira— 
cife  could  be.  If  lie  ikould  finiL  as,  lie  cor- 


tainly  would,  that  many  ancient  prophecies 
had  been  fulfilled  in  all  their  circumftarsces, 
and  that  fome  were  fulfilling  at  this  very  day, 
he  would  not  differ  a  few  feeming  or  real  dif- 
ficulties to  overbalance  the  weight  of  thisac- 
cumufated  evidence  for  the  truth  of  the  Bi- 
ble. Such,  I  prefume  to  think,  would  be  a 
proper  conduit  in  all  thofe  who  aredeftrous 
of  forming  a  rational  and  impartial  judgment 
on  the  fubject  of  revealed  religion. — To  re- 
turn.— 

As  to  yenir  obfervation,  that  the  book 
of  Ifaiah  is  (at  leaft  in  tranilation)  that 
kind  of  cornpofition  and  falfe  tafie,  which 
is  properly  called  profe  run  mad — I  have 
only  to  remark,  that  your  tafle  for  Hebrew 
poetry,  even  judging  of  it  from  tranflationr 
would  be  more  correct  if  you  would  fuf- 
fer  youiTcif  to  be  informed  on  the  fubje£t 
by  Bifhop  Lowtb,  who  tells  you  in  his 
Prelections — %t  that  a  poem  translated  lite- 
rally from  the  Hebrew  into  any  other 
language,  whilft  the  fame  forms  of  the  fen* 
tences  remain,  will  ftill  retain,  even  as 
far  as  relates  to  verfification,  much  of  its 
Dative  dignity,  and  a  faint  appearance  cf 
verfification."  (Gregory's  Tranl.)  If  this 
is  what  you  mean  by  profe  run  mad,  your 
obfervation  may  be  admitted.. 

You  explain  at  fome  length  your  notion  cf 
the  miftpplicaiioa  made  by  St.  Matthew  of 


9* 

the  prophecy  in  Ifaiah — "  Behold,  a  virgin 
fhall  conceive  and  bear  a  fon."  That  paflage 
has  been  handled  largely  and  minutely  by  al- 
moft  every  commentator,  and  it  is  too  im- 
portant to  be  handled  fuperficially  by  any 
one  :  I  am  not  on  the  prefent  occafion  con- 
cerned to  explain  it.  It  is  quoted  by  you  to 
prove,  and  it  is  the  only  inftance  you  pro- 
duce— that  Ifaiah  was  "  a  lying  prophet  and 
an  impoftor."  Now  I  maintain,  that  this 
very  inftance  proves,  that  he  was  a  true  pro- 
phet, and  no  irnpoftor.  The  hiftory  of  the 
prophecy,  as  delivered  in  the  feventh  chap- 
ter, is  this — Rezin  king  of  Syria,  and  Pekah 
king  of  Ifracl,  made  war  upon  Ahaz,  king  of 
Judah;  not  merely,  or,  perhaps,  not  at  all, 
for  the  fake  of  plunder  or  the  conqueft  of  ter- 
ritory, but  with  a  declared  purpofe  of  making 
an  entire  revolution  in  the  government  of 
Judah,  of  defiroying  the  royal  houfe  of  Da- 
vid,  and  of  placing  another  family  on  the 
throne.  Their  purpofe  is  thus  exprefTed — 
"  Let  us  go  up  againft  Judah,  and  vex  it, 
and  let  us  make  a  breach  therein  for  us,  and 
fet  a  king  in  the  midil  of  it,  even  the  fon  of 
Tabeal." — Now  what  did  the  Lord  eom- 
miffion  Ifaiah  to  fay  to  Ahaz,?  did  he  com- 
imffion  him  to  fay,  the  kings  fhall  not  vex 
thee?  No. — The  kings  fhail  not  conquer 
thee  ?'  No. — The  kings  (hall  not  fuccecd 
againft  thee?  No: — he  commiffioned  him  to> 
fay,  "  It  (the  purpofe  of  the  two  kings)  (hall 


95 

not  (land,  neither  fiiall  it  come  to  pafs/'  I 
demand— Did  it  Hand,  did  it  come  to  pafs? 
Was  Tabeal  ever  made  king  of  Judah  ?  No. 
The  prophecy  was  perfectly  accompliflicd. 
Yon  fay,  "  Inflead  of  thefe  two  kings  failing 
in  their  attempt  againft  Ahaz,,  they  fucceed- 
ed  ;  Ahaz,  was  defeated  and  deftroyed?' — I 
deny  the  faft  ;  Ahaz.  was  defeated,  but  not 
deftroyed  ;  and  even  the  "  two  hundred 
thoufand  women,  and  ions,  and  daughters," 
whom  you  represent  as  carried  into  captivity, 
were  not  carried  into  captivity  ;  they  were 
made  captives,  but  they  were  not  carried  in- 
to captivity  ;  for  the  chief  men  of  Samaria, 
being  admonifhed  by  a  prophet,  would  not 
fuffer  Pekah  to  bring  the  captives  into  the 
land — "  They  rofe  up,  and  took  the  captives/ 
and  with  the  fpoil  cloathed  all  that  were  na- 
ked among  them,  and  arrayed  them,  and  (hod 
them,  and  gave  them  to  eat  and  to  drink, 
and  anointed  them,  and  carried  all  the  feeble 
of  them  upon  afles,  (fome  humanity,  you  fee, 
amongil  thofe  Ifraelites,  whom  you  every 
whcjre  rirprefent  as  barbarous  brutes),  and: 
brought  them  to  Jericho,  the  city  of  palm- 
trees,  to  their  brethren/7  2  Chron.  xxviii. 
1 5.— The  kings  did  fail  in  their  attempt,  their 
attempt  was  to  deftroy  the  houfe  of  David, 
and  to  make  a  revolution ;  but  they  made  no 
revolution,  they  did  not  deftroy  the  houfe  of 
David,  for  Ahaz,  flept  with  his  fathers;  and 
Hez,ek  ah,  his  fon,  of  the  houfe  of  David, 
reigned  in  his  (lead, 


LET  ¥*£  R    VI. 


JFTER  what  I  conceive  to  be  a  great 
inifreprefen  tat  ion  of  the  character  and  conduit 
of  Jeremiah,  you  bring  forward  an  objection 
which  Spinoza  and  others  before  you  had 
much  iniifted  upon,  though  it  is  an  objection 
\vhich  neither  affects  the  genuinenefs,  nor  the 
authenticity,  of  the  book  of  Jeremiah,  any 
more  than  the  blunder  of  a  bookbinder,  in 
mifplacing  the  fheets  of  your  performance, 
•would  leflen  its  authority.  The  objection  is, 
that  the  book  of  Jeremiah  has  been  put  to- 
gether in  a  difordered  ftate.  It  is  acknow- 
ledged, that  the  order  ef  time  is  not  every 
where  obferved;  but  the  caufe  of  the  confu- 
fion  is  not  known.  Some  attribute  it  to  Ba- 
ruch  collecting  into  one  volume  all  the  feve- 
ral  prophecies  which  Jeremiah  had  written, 
and  neglecting  to  put  them  in  their  proper 
places  : — others  think  that  the  feveral  parts 
of  the  work  were  at  firft  properly  arranged, 


95 

But  that  through  accident,  or  the  carelejfTnefs 
of  tranfcribers,  they  were  deranged  ; — others 
contend,  that  there  is  no  confufion  ;  that 
prophecy  differs  from  hiftory,  in  not  being 
fubjeft  to  an  accurate  obfervance  of  time  and 
order.  But  leaving  this  matter  to  be  fettled 
by  critical  difcuflion,  let  us  come  to  a  matter 
of  greater  importance — to  your  charge  againfl 
Jeremiah  for  his  duplicity,  and  for  his  falfe 
prediction.  Firft,  as  to  his  duplicity  : 

JEREMIAH,  on  account  of  his  having  bold- 
ly predicted  the  deftruftion  of  Jerusalem,  had 
been  thruft  into  a  miry  dungeon  by  theprinces 
of  Judah  who  fought  his  life;  there  he  would 
have  perifhed,  had  not  one  of  the  eunuchs  ta- 
ken companion  on  him,  and  petitioned  king 
Zedekiah  in  his  favour,  faying,  "  Thefe  oien 
(the  princes)  have  done  evil  in  all  that  they 
have  done  to  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  (no  final! 
teftimony  this,  of  the  probity  of  the  prophet's 
character,)  whom  they  have  caft  into  thedun- 
geon,  and  he  is  like  to  die  for  hunger." — On 
this  reprefentation  Jeremiah  was  taken  out  of 
the  dungeon  by  an  order  from  the  king,  who 
foon  afterwards  fent  privately  for  him.  ^nd 
defired  him  to  conceal  nothing  from  him, 
binding  himfelf,  by  an  oath,  that,  whatever 
might  be  the  nature  of  his  prophecy,  lie 
would  not  put  him  to  death,  or  deliver  him 
into  the  hands  of  the  princes  who  fouoht  his 
life.  Jeremiah  delivered  to  him  the  purpofe 


of  God  refpe&ing  the  fate  of  Jerufalem.  The 
conference  being  ended,  the  king,  anxious  to 
perform  his  oath,  to  prelerve  the  life  of  the 
prophet,  difmiffed  him,  faying,  "  Let  no 
•  man  know  of  thefe  words,  and  thou  (halt 
not  die.  But  if  the  princes  hear  that  I  have 
talked  with  thee,  and  they  come  unto  thee, 
and  fay  unto  thee,  Declare  unto  us  now 
what  thou  haft  faid  unto  the  king,  hide  it 
not  from  us,  and  we  will  not  put  thee  to 
death  ;  allb  what  the  king  faid  unto  thee  : 
then  thou  {halt  fay  unto  them,  I  prefented  my 
fupplication  before  the  king,  that  he  would 
not  caufe  me  to  return  to  Jonathan's  houfe 
to  die  .there.  Then  came  all  the  princes  unto 
Jeremiah,  and  allied  him,  and  he  told  them 
according  to  all  thefe  words  that  the  king 
had  commanded." — Thus  you  remark, tk  this 
man  of  God,  as  he  is  called,  could  tell  a  lie, 
or  very  ftrongly  prevaricate,  for  certainly 
he  did  not.  go  to  Zedekiah  to  make  liis  fup- 
plication, neither  did  he  make  it." — It  is  riot 
faid  that  he  told  the  princes  lie  ivcnt  to  make 
his  fupplication,.  but  that  he  prejented  it: 
now  it  is  fa  id  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that 
he  did  make  the  fupplication,  and  it  is  pro- 
bable that  in  this  conference  he  renewed  it ; 
but  be  that  as  it  may,  I  contend  that  Jere- 
miah was  not  guilty  of  duplicity,  or,  in 
more  intelligible  terms,'  that  he  did  ndt  vio- 
late any  law  of  nature,  or  of  civil  focicty,  in 
what  he  did  on  this  occaficn.  He  told  the 


97 

truth,  in  part,  to  fave  his  life  ;  and  he  was 
under  no  obligation  to  teli  the  whole  to  men 
who  were  certainly  his  enemies,  and  no  good 
fubjects  to  his  king.  "  In  a  matter  (fays 
Puifendorf,)  which  I  am  not  obliged  to  de- 
clare to  another,  if  I  cannot,  with  fafety, 
conceal  the  whole,  I  may  fairly  difcover  no 
more  than  a  part/'  Was  Jeremiah  under 
any  obligation  to  declare  to  the  princes  what 
had  pafled  in  his  conference  with  the  king  ? 
You  may  as  well  fay,  that  the  houfe  of  lords 
has  a  right  to  compel  privy  counfellors  to 
reveal  the  king's  fecrets.  The  king  cannot 
juftly  require  a  privy  counsellor  to  tell  a  lie 
for  him  ;  but  he  may  require  him  not  to 
divulge  his  counfels  to  thofe  who  have  no 
right  to  know  them. — Now  for  the  falfc 
prediction — I  will  give  the  defcription  of  it 
in  your  own  words. 

In  the  34-th  chapter  is  a  prophecy  of  Je- 
remiah to  Zedekiah,  in  thefe  words,  ver.  2. — 
4  Thus  faith  the  Lord,  Behold,  I  will  give 
this  city  into  the  hands  of  the  king  of  Baby- 
lon, and  will  burn  it  with  fire  ;  and  thou 
jfhalt  not  efcape  out  of  his  hand,  but  thou 
(halt  furcly  be  taken,  and  delivered  into  his 
hand  ;  and  thine  eyes  {hall  behold  the  eyes 
of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  he  (hall  fpeak 
with  thee  mouth  to  mouth,  and  thou  fhalt 
go  to  Babylon.  Yet  hear  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  0  ZedekiaA9  king  ofjndah  ;  thus  faith 
I 


the  Lord,  Thou-  ftialt  not  die  by  the  /word, 
but  thou  /halt  die  in  peace  ;  and  with  the 
burnings  of  thy  fathers ,  the  former  kings  that 
ivere  before  thee,  fo  /hall  they  burn  odours  for 
thee,  and  ivill  lament  thee,  faying,  ^/2,  Lord, 
for  I  have  pronounced  the  -word,  faith  the 
Lord. 

"  Now,  inftead  of  Zedekiah  beholding 
the  eyes  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  {peak- 
ing with  him  mouth  to  mouth,  and  dying  in 
peace,  and  with  the  burnings  of  odours,  as 
at  the  funeral  of  his  fathers  (as  Jeremiah  had 
declared  the  Lord  hirnlelf  had  pronounced) 
the  reverie,  according  to  the  5?d  chapter 
was  the  cafe  ;  it  is  there  dated,  verfe  10, 
6  That  the  king  of  Babylon  fle\v  the  fons 
of  Zedekiah  before  his  eyes  ;  then  he  put 
out  the  eyes  of  Zedekiah  :  and  bound  him  in 
chains,  and  carried  him  to  Babylon,  and  put 
him  in  prifon  till  the  day  of  his  death.' 
'What  can  we  fay  of  thefe  prophets,  but  that 
they  are  importers  and  liars?''  1  can  fay 
this — that  the  prophecy  you  have  produced, 
was  fulfilled  in  all  its  parts:  and  what  then 
(hall  be  faidofthofe  who  call  Jeremiah  a 
liar  and  an  importer  ?  .  Here  then  we  are 
fairly  at  iiTue— you  affirm  that  the  prophecy 
was  not  fulfilled,  and  I  affirm  that  it  was 
fulfilled  in  all  its  parts.  "  I  will  give  this 
city  into  the  hands  of  the  king  of  Babylon, 
smd  he  {hall  burn  it  with  fire  :•"  fo  fays  the 


99 

prophet  ;  what  fays  the  hiftory  ?  "  They 
(the  forces  of  the  king  of  Babylon)  burnt 
the  houfe  of  God,  and  brake  down  the  walls 
of  Jeruialem,  and  burnt  all  the  palaces  there- 
of with  fire.  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  19.)  "  Thou 
(halt  not  efcape  out  of  his  hand,  but  {halt 
f u rely  be  taken  and  delivered  into  his  hand  ;" 
fo  fays  the  prophet ;  what  fays  the  hiftory  ? 
— The  men  of  war  fled  by  night  and  the 
king  went  the  way  towards  the  plain,  and 
the  army  of  the  Chaldees  purfned  after  the 
king,  and  overtook  him  in  the  plains  of  Je- 
richo ;  and  all  his  army  were  fcattered  from 
him  :  fo  they  took  the  king,  and  brought  him 
up  to  the  Jung  of  Babylon,  to  Riblah."  (2 
Kings  xxv.  5.)  The  prophet  goes  "on* 
"  Thine  eyes  {hall  behold  the  eyes  of  the 
king  of  Babylon,  and  he  fliall  fpeak  with  thec 
mouth  to  mouth." — No  pleafant  circum- 
ftance  this  to  Zcdddah,  r/ho  had  provoked 
the  king  of  Babylon  by  revolting  from  him  ! 
The  hiftory  fays,  "  The  king  of  Babylon 
gave  judgment  upon  Zedekiah,"  or,  as  it  is 
more  literally  rendered  from  the  Hebrew, 
4*  jpakc  judgments  with  him  at  Riblah."  The 
prophet  concludes  this  part  with,  4t  And  thou 
(halt  go  to  Babylon  ;"  the  hiftory  fays,  "  The 
king  of  Babylon  bound  him  in  chains,  and 
carried  him  to  Babylon,  and  put  him  in  pri- 
fon  till  the  day  of  his  death,"  Jer.  Hi.  1 1. — 
"  Thou  (halt  not  die  by  the  iVord."  He 
did  not  die  by  the  fword,  he  did  not  fall  in 


ICO 

battle,—  44  But  them  (halt  die  in  peace."  He 
did  die  in  peace,  he  neither  expired  on  the 
rack  or  on  the  fcaffold ;  was  neither  ftrangled, 
nor  poifoned  ;  no'  umiiual  fate  of  captive 
kings!  he  died  peaceably  in  his  bed,  though 
that  bed  was  in  a  prifon. — "  And  with  the 
burnings  of  thy  fathers  (hall  they  burn  odours 
for  thee."  I  cannot  prove  from  the  hiftory 
that  this  part  of  the  prophecy  was  accom- 
plifhed,  nor  can  you  prove  that  it  was  not. 
The  probability  is,  that  it  was  accomplifhed ; 
and  I  have  two  reafons  on  which  I  ground 

this    probability. Daniel,    Shadrach,    Me- 

ftiach,  and  Abednego,  to  fay  nothing  of 
other  jews,  were  men  of  great  authority  in 
the  court  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  before  and 
after  the  commencement  of  the  imprifonment 
of  Zedekiah ;  and  Daniel  continued  in  power 
till  the  fubvcrfion  of  the  kingdom  of  Baby- 
lon by  Cyrus. — Now  it  feems  to  me  to  be  ve- 
ry probable,  that  Daniel,  and  the  other  great 
men  of  the  Jews,  would  both  have  inclina- 
tion to  requeft,  and  influence  enough  with 
the  king  of  Babylon  to  obtain  perrniffion  to 
bury  their  cleceafed  prince  Zedekiah,  after  the 
manner  of  his  fathers, — But  if  there  had  been 
no  Jews  at  Babylon  of  confequence  enough 
to  make  fuch  a  requeft,  ftill  it  is  probable  that 
the  king  of  Babylon  would  have  ordered  the 
Jews  to  bury  and  lament  their  departed  prince, 
after  the  manner  of  their  country.  Monarchs, 
like  other  men,  are  confcious  of  the  inftability 


IOI 

of  human  condition;  and  when  the  pomp  of 
war  has  ceafed,  when  the  infblence  of  con- 
queft  is  abated,  and  the  fury  of  refentment 
fubfided,  they  felclom  fail  to  revere  royalty 
even  in  its  ruins,  and  grant  without  reluc- 
tance proper  obiequies  to  the  remains  of  cap- 
tive kings. 

You  profefs  to  have  been  particular  in 
treating  of  the  books  afcribed  to  Ifaiah  and 
Jeremiah. — Particular!  in  what?  You  have 
particularized  two  or  three  paflages,  which 
you  have  endeavoured  to  reprefent  as  objec- 
tionable, and  which  I  hope  have  been  fhewn, 
to  the  reader's  fatisfa&ion,  to  be  not  juftly 
liable  to  your  cenfure;  and  you  have  pafied 
over  all  the  other  parts  of thefe  books  with- 
out notice.  Had  you  been  particular  in  your 
examination,  you  would  have  found  caufe 
to  admire  the  probity  and  the  intrepidity  of 
the  characters  of  the  authors  of  them  ;  you 
would  have  met  with  many  inftances  of  rub- 
lime  compofition  ;  and,  what  is  of  more 
confequence,  with  many  iuflanccs  of  pro- 
phetical veracity  : — particularities  of  thefe 
kinds  you  have  wholly  overlooked*  I  cannot 
account  for  this;  I  have  no  right,  no  inclina- 
tion, to  call  you  a  difhoneft  man  ;  am  I  jufti- 
fied  in  confidering  you  as  a  man  not  altoge- 
ther deftitute  of  ingenuity,  but  fo  entirely 
under  the  dominion  of  prejudice  in  every 
thing  refpeding  the  Bible,  that,  like  a  cor- 

I    2 


IO2 

riipted  judge,  previonfly  determined  to  give 
fentence  on  one  fide,  you  are  negligent  in  the 
examination  of  truth  ? 

You  proceed  to  the  reft  of  the  prophets, 
and  you  take  them  collectively  ;  carefully 
however  felefting  for  your  obfervations  fiich 
particularities  as  are  beft  calculated  to  ren- 
der, if  poflible,  the  prophets  odious  or  ridi- 
culous in  the  eyes  of  your  readers.  You 
confound  prophets  with  poets  and  muficians  : 
I  would  diftinguifh  them  thus;  many  pro- 
phets were  poets  and  muficians,  but  all  poets 
and  muficians  were  not  prophets.  Prophecies 
were  often  delivered  in  poetic  language  and 
meafure  ;  but  flights  and  metaphors  of  the 
Jewifh  poets  have  not,  as  you  affirm,  been 
foolifhly  ere  ft  ed  into  what  are  now  called 
prophecies — they  are  now  called,  and  have 
always  been  called,  prophecies,- — becauie  they 
were  real  predictions,  fo.tne  of  which  have 
received,  fome  are  now  receiving,  and  all. 
will  receive,  their  full  accompliftunent, 

THAT  there  were  falfe  prophets,  witches, 
necromancers,  conjurors,  and  fortune-tellers, 

ti||  ««Wp«^*T       '     *9*      J  +*?        r  •**    .rl        ^--^«-. -"--—        ' 

among  the  Je^^^no  perfon  will  attempt  to 
y;  no  nation,  barbarous  or  civilized,  has 
been  without  them  :  but  when  you  would 
degrade  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Teftament 
to  a  level  with  tlieie  conjuring,  dreaming, 
ftrolling  gentry- — when  you  would  reprefent 


105 

them  as  {pending  their  lives  in  fortune-tel- 
ling, calling  nativities,  predicting  riches,  for- 
tunate or  unfortunate  marriages,  conjuring 
for  loft  goods,  &c.  I  mud  be  allowed  to  fay, 
that  you  wholly  miftake  their  office,  and 
milreprefent  their  charafter  ;  their  office  was 
to  convey  to  the  children  of  Ifrael  the  com- 
mands, the  promifes,  the  threatenings  of  Al- 
mighty God  ;  and  their  character  was  that 
of  men  fullaining,  with  fortitude,  pcrfecuti- 
on  in  the  difcharge  of  their  duty*  f~*f1ft&f& 
were  falfe  prophets  in  abundance  among-ft 

-"-*».  ""BUJ**  ****&#*  •Vf--,,./4,  '  *-*      .,... 

the  Jewsj  and  if  you  oppofe  tnefe  to  theTFue 
prophets,  and  call  them  both  party  prophets, 
you  have  the  liberty  of  doing  fo,  but  you 
will  not  thereby  confound  the  diftinftion, 
between  truth  and  falfehoocL  Falie  pro- 
phets are  fpoken  of  with  detellation  in  many 
parts  of  fcripture.  particularly  by  Jeremiah, 
who  accufes  them  of  prophefying  lies  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  faying,  I  have  dreamed, 
"Ihavedreamed  :  Behold,  lam  againft  the  pro- 
phets, faith  the  Lord,  that  ufe  their  tongues, 
and  fay,  He  faith  ;  that  prophecy  falfe  dreams, 
andcaufe  my  people  to  err  by  their  liesandby 
their  lightaeis."  ;  Jeremiah  cautions  his  coun- 
trymen againft  §W^§*tredit  to  their""pro 

^  .    -     **•***?          ,   ^p^j.0.  3    •••*>•.*&*      .       T  v^t^:^ 

phcts,  to  their  divmerst  to  their  dreamers,  to 
their  enchanters,  to  their  lorcerers,  "'which 
ipeak  unto  you,  laying,  Ye  fliall  not  lerve 
the  king  of  Babylon.'7  You  cannot  think 

-M,  »«-».,.         ^*  B  ... 


more  contemptibly  of  thefe  gentry,  than  they 
were  thought  of  by  the  true  prophets  at  the 
time  they  lived;  but,  as  Jeremiah  fays  on 
this  fubje<ft,  "  what  is  the  chaff"  to  the 
wheat  ?  "  what  are  the  falfe  prophets  to 
the  true  ones  ?  Every  thing  good  is  liable 
to  abufe  ;  but  who  argues  againft  the  ufe  of 
a  thing  from  the  abufe  of  it  ?  againft  phy- 
licians,  becaufe  there  are  pretenders  to  phy- 
fic  ?  Was  liaiah  a  fortune-teller,  predicting 
riches,  when  he  faid  to  kingHezekiah, "  Be- 
hold, thedays  come,  that  all  that  is  in  thine 
houfe  and  that  which  thy  fathers  have  laid 
up  in  (tore  until  this  day,  (hall  be  carried  to 
Babylon  :  nothingftiall  be  left  faith  the  Lord. 
And  of  thy  fons  that  (hall  iffuefrom  thee,  which 
them  {halt  beget,  (hall  they  take  away,  and 
they  (hall  be  eunuchs  in  the  palace  of  thek  ing 
of  Babylon."  Fortune-tellers  generallyp  re- 
di£t  good  luck  to  their  fimple  cuftomers, 
that  they  may  make  fomelhing  by  their  trade; 
but  Ifaiah  predicts  to  a  monarch  defolation  of 
his  country,  and  ruin  of  his  family.  This 
prophecy  was  fpoken  in  the  year  before 
Chrift  713  ;  and,  above  an  hundred  yeais  af- 
terwards, it  wasaccoinplifhed  ;  when  Nebu* 
chadnezzar  took  Jerufalem,  and  carried  out 
thence  all  the  treafures  of  the  heufe  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  treafures  of  the  king's  houfe, 
(2  Kings  xxiv.  13.)  and  when  lie  commanded 
the  mafter  cf  his  eunuchs,  (Dan.  i.  3.)  that 
he  (hculd  take  certain  of  the  children  of  Ifra- 


105 

el,  and  of  the  king's  feed,  and  of  the  princes, 
and  educate  them  for  three  years,  till  they 
were  able  to  ftand  before  the  king. 

JEHORAM  king  of  Ifrael,  Jehofhaphat 
king  of  Judah,  and  the  king  of  Edom,  going 
with  their  armies  to  make  war  on  the  king 
of  Moab,  came  into  a  place  where  there  was 
no  water  either  for  their  men  or  cattle.  In 
this  diflrefs  they  waited  upon  Elifha,  (an 
high  honour  for  one  of  your  conjurors,)  by 
the  advice  of  Jehofhaphat,  who  knew  that 
the  word  of  the  Lord  was  with  him.  The 
prophet,  on  feeing  Jehoram,  an  idolatrous 
prince,  who  had  revolted  from  the  worfhip 
of  the  true  God,  come  to  confult  him,  laid 
to  him — 4tGet  thee  to  the  prophets  of  thy 
father  and  the  prophets  of  thy  mother." — 
This  you  think  fhews  Eliiha  to  have  been  a 
party  prophet,  full  of  venom  and  vulgarity 
— it  fhews  him  to  have  been  a  man.  of  great 
courage,  who  refpefted  the  dignity  of  his 
own  character,  the  facrednefs  of  his  office  as 
a  prophet  of  God,  whole  duty  it  was  to  re- 
prove the  wickednefs  of  kings,  as  of  other 
men.  He  ordered  them  to  make  the  valley 
where  they  were  full  of  ditches  ; — this,  you 
fay,  "  every  countryman  could  have  told, 
that  the  way  to  get  water  was  to  dig  for  it  :" 
— but  this  is  not  a  true  representation  of  the 
cafe  ;  the  ditches  were  not  dug  that  the  water 
might  be  gotten  by  digging  for  it,  but  that 


io6 

they  might  hold  the  wafer  when  It  fliould 
miracnlou'fty"  come  *fc  without  winder  rain," 
from  another  country  ;  and  it  did  come 
4fcfrom  the  way  of  Edom,and  the  country  was 
filled -with  water."—  As  to  Elifha's  curfing 
thejjttle  children  who  had  mocked  at  him, 
and  their  definition  in  coniequence  of  his  im- 
precation, the  whole  ftory  muft  be  taken  to- 
gether. The  provocation  he  received,  is  by 
ibme,  confidered  as  an  infult  offered  to  him, 
not  as  a  man  but  a  prophet,  and  that  the  per- 
fons  who  offered  it  were  not  what  we  un- 
derftand  by  little  children,  but  grown  up 
youths  ;  the  term  child  being  applied,  in  the 
Hebrew  language,  to  grown  up  performs.  Be 
this  as  it  may,  the  curling  w&s  the  a£t  of  the 
prophet ;  had  it  been  a  fin,  it  would  not  have 
beenronowed  by  j^Trarulous  dcilruflion  of 
the  offi:nciers  ;  for  thij  ..was  the  act  of  God, 
'who  bcft  knows  who  defer ve  puniflmient. 
What  effeft  fuch  a  fignal  judgment  had  on 
the  idolatrous  inhabitants  of  the  land,  is  no 
where  laid  ;  but  it  is  probable  it  was  not 
without  a  good  effect. 

EZEKIEL  and  Daniel  lived  during  the  Ba- 
bylonian captivity;  you  allow  their  writings 
to  be  genuine.  In  this  you  differ  from  fome 
of  the  great  eft  adverfaries  of  Chriftianity  : 
•and  in  my  opinion  cut  up,  by  this  conceilt- 
on,  the  very  rootof  your  whole  performance. 
It  is  next  to  an  impoffibilityfcr  any  man,  who 


io  7 

admits  the  book  of  Daniel  to  be  a  genuine 
book,  and  who  examines  that  book  with  in- 
telligence and  impartiality,  to  refufe  his  af- 
fent  to  the  truth  of  chriftianity.  As  to  your 
faying,  that  the  interpretations  which  com- 
mentators  and  priefts  have  made  of  ihefe 
books,  only  fhew  the  fraud,  or  the  extreme 
folly  to  which  credulity  and  prieftcraft  can 
go.,  I  confuler  it  as  nothing  but  a  proof  of 
the  extreme  folly  or  fraud  to  which  preju- 
dice and  infidelity  can  carry  a  minute  philo- 
fopher.  \Ycrn  profefs  a  fondnefs  forjcience^ 
I  will  refef^you  to  a  fcientr^c^ian,  whcTwas 
neither  a  commentator  nor  a  priefu— -to  Fer- 
gufoi). — In^a  tract  entitled— The  Year  of 
our  Saviour's  Crucifixion  afcertainecf ;  and 
the  darknefs,  at  the  time  of  his  crucifixion, 
proved  to  be  fupernatural — this  real  philo- 
ibpher  interprets  the  remarkable  prophecy 
in  the  gth  chapter  of  Daniel,  and  concludes 
his  difTertation  in  the  following  words — 
fci  Thus  we  have  an  aftronomical  demonftra- 
tion  of  the  truth  of  this  ancient  prophecy, 
feeing  that  the  proghetic  year  of  the  JVlefii- 
ah's  •being  cut  off,  was,^^^  very  fame  with 
the  aftronomical."  I  have  fomewhere  read 

•""•Sfc.  .;  «-t^»*'^";H**«W5)»>..™. 

an  account  of  a  folemndifputation  \vhich  was 
held  at  Venice,  in  the  laft  century,  between 
a  Jew  and  a  Chriftian  :  the  Chriftian  ftrong- 
ly  argued  from  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  fe- 
venty  weeks,  that  Jefus  was  the  Meffiah 
whom  the  Jews  had  long  expected,  from  the 


predictions  of  their  prophets t-^-the  learned 
Rabbi,  who  prefided  at  this  difputation,  was 
fo  forcibly  ftruck  by  the  argument,  that  he 
put  an  end  to  the  bufinefs,  by  faying, — "  Let 
us  ftiut  up  our  Bibles;  for  if  we  proceed  in 
the  examination  of  this  prophecy,  it  will 
make  us  all  become  Chriftians." — Was  it  a 
fimilar  apprehenfion  which  deterred  you 
from  fo  much  as  opening  the  book  of  Daniel  ? 
You  have  not  produced  from  it  one  excepti- 
onable paffage.  I  hope  you  will  read  that 
book  with  attention,  with  intelligence,  and 
with  an  unbiafled  mind  follow  the  advice  of 
our  Saviour  when  he  quoted  this  very  pro- 
phecy— "  Let  him  that  readeth  underftand" 
— and  I  (hail  not  difpair  of  your  convention 
from  deiiin  to  chriflianity. 

IN  order  todifcredit  the  authority  of  the 
books  which  you  allow  to  be  genuine,  you 
form  a  flrange  and  prodigious  hypothefis  con- 
cerning Exekiel  and  Daniel,  for  which  there 
is  no  manner  of  foundation  either  in  hiflory 
or  probability.  You.fuppofe  thefe  two  men 
to  have  had  no  dreams,  no  vifions,  no  revela- 
tion from  God  Almighty  ;  but  to  have  pre- 
tended to  thefe  things;  and,  under  that  dif- 
gnife,  to  have  carried  on  an  enigmatical  cor- 
refpondence  relative  to  the  recovery  of  their 
country  from  the  Babylonian  yoke.  That 
any  man  in  his  fenfes  ftiduld  frame  or  adopt 
fuch  an  hypothefis,  fhould  have  fo  little  re- 


gard  to  his  own  reputation  as  an  impartial 
enquirer  after  truth,  fo  littk  refpeft  for  the 
underftanding  of  his  readers,  as  to  obtrude  it 
on  the  world,  would  have  appeared  an  in- 
credible circumflance,  had  not  you  made  it 

a  fadt 

.<:••  -     ""'% 

You  quote  a  paflage  from  Ezekiel;  in  the 
29th  chapter,  ver.  11,  fpeaking  of  Egypt, 
it  is  faid — "  No  foot  of  man  (hall  pafs  through 
it,  nor  foot  of  beaft  (hall  pafs  through  it,  nei- 
ther (hall  it  bs  inhabited  forty  years  : — this,  ... 
you  fay,  "  never  came  to/roafs,  and  conie- 
quently  it  is  falfe,  as  all  the  t>ooks  I  have  al- 
ready viewed  are."  Now  that  this  did  come 
to  pafs,  we  have,  as  Bifhop  Newton  obferves, 
"  the  teftimonies  of  Megaflhenes  and  Bero- 
fus,  two  heathen  hiftorians,  who  lived  about 
300  years  before  Chrift :  one  of  whom 
affirms,,  exprefsly,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  con- 
quered the  greateft  part  of  Africa  ;  and 
the  other  affirms  it,  in  elfedt,  in  faying, 
that  when  Nebuchadnezzar  heard  of  the 
death  of  his  father,  having  fettled  his  af- 
fairs in  Egypt,  and  committed  the  captives 
whom  he  took  in  Egypt  to  the  care  of  fome 
of  his  friends  to  bring  them  after  him,  he 
hafted  direftly  to  Babylon."  And  if  we  had 
been  poflejfiTed  of  no  teftimony  in  fupport  of 
the  prophecy,  it  would  have  been  an  hafty 
co'iciufion,  that  the  prophecy  never  came  to 
pafs;  the  hiftory  of  Egypt,  at  fo  remote  a 
K 


110 

period,  being  no  where  accurately  and  cir- 
cumftantlally  related.  '  I  admit  that  no  pe- 
riod can  be  pointed  out  from  the  age  of  Ez,e- 
kiel  to  the  prefent,  in  which  there  was  lio 
foot  of  man  or  beaft  to  be  feen  for  forty  years 
in  all  Egypt ;  but  fome  think  that  only  a  part 
of  Egypt  is  here  fpoken  of;  and  furely  you 
do  not  expert  a  literal  accomplifhment  of  an 
hyperbolical  expreffion,  denoting  great  defo- 
lation  ;  importing  that  the  trade  of  Egypt, 
which  was  carried  on  then,  as  at  prefent,  by 
caravans,  by  the  foot  of  man  and  beaft,  fliould 
be  annihilated.  Had  you  taken  the  trouble 
to  have  looked  a  little  farther  into  the  book 
from  which  you  have  made  your  quotation, 
you  would  have  there  feen  a  prophecy  deli- 
vered above  two  thouiand  years"  ago,  and 
which  has  been  fulfilling  from  tffiat  time  to 
this — ;;  Egypt  fhall  be  the  bafcft  of  the  king- 
doms, neither  fliall  it  exalt  itielf  any  more 

above  the  nations — there  fhall  be  no  moA  e  a 

- 

prince  of  the  land  of  Egypt/' — This  you 
may  call  a  dream,  a  viiion,  a  lie:  I  efteem  it 
a  wonderful  prophecy  ;  for  "  as  is  the  pro- 
phecy, To  has  been  the  event.  :  Egypt  v/rs 
conquered  by  the  Babylonians;  and  after  the 
Babylonians  by  the  PeiTians;  and  after  the 
'.'Perfians  it  became  iubjeft  to  the  Macedonians; 
and  after  the  Macedonians  to  the  Romans; 
#nd  after  the  Romans  to  the  Saracens  ;  and 
then  to  the  Mamalucs ;  and  is  now  a  province 
of  the 


Ill 

SUFFER  me  to  produce  to  you  from  this 
author  not  an  enigmatical  letter  to  Daniel 
refpefting  the  recovery  of  Jerufalem  from 
the  hands  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  but  an 
enigmatical  prophecy  concerning  Zedekiah 
the  king  of  Jerufalem,  before  it  was  taken 
by  the  Chaldeans. — "  I  will  bring  him  (Ze- 
dekiah) to  Babylon,  to  the  land  of  the  Chal- 
deans; yet  (hall  he  not  fee  it,  though  he  fhall 
die  there/' — How!  not  fee  Babylon,  when  he 
fliould  die  there  !  How,  moreover,  is  this 
confident,  you  may  afk,  with  what  Jeremi- 
ah had  foretold — that  Zedekiah  fliould  fee 
the  eyes  of  the  king  of  Babylon  ? — This 
darknefs  of  expreffion,  and  apparent  contra- 
diftion  between  the  two  prophets,  induced 
Zedekiah  (as  Jofephus  informs  us)  to  give 
no  credit  to  either  of  them  ;  yet  he  unhap- 
pily experienced,  and  the  fa£l  is  worthy  your 
obfervation,  the  truth  of  them  both.  He 
faw  the  eyes  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  not  at 
Babylon,  but  at  Riblah;  his  eyes  were  there 
put  out;  and  he  was  carried  to  Babylon,  yet 
he  faw  it  not  ;  and  thus  were  the  predictions 
of  both  the  prophets  verified,  and  the  enig- 
ma of  Ez,ekiel  explained. 

As  to  your  wonderful  difcovery  that  the 
prophecy  of  Jonah  is  a  book  of  fome  Gentile, 
"  and  that  it  has  been  written  as  a  fable,  to 
expofe  the  nonfenfe,  and  to  fatirize  the  vici- 
ous and  malignant  character  of  a  Bible  pro- 


lit 

pbet,  or  a  predicting  prieft,"  I  fhall  put  it, 
covered  with  hellebore  for  the  ferVice  of  its 
author,  on  the  fame  fhelf  with  your  hypo- 
,thelis  concerning  the  confpirrcy  of  Daniel 
and  Exekiel,  and  fliall  not  fay  another  word 
about  it. 

You  conclude  your  obje&ions  to  the  Old 
Tcftament  is  a  triumphant  ftyle  ;  an  angry 
opponent  would  fay,  in  a  ftyle  of  extreme 
arrogance,  and  fottifh  felf-fufficiency. — "  I 
have  gone,"  you  {ay,  "  through  the  Bible 
(miftaking  here,  as  in  other  places,  the  Old 
Teftament  for  the  Bible)  as  a  man  would  go 
through  a  wood,  with  an  axe  on  his  fhonl- 
ders,  and  fell  trees:  here  they  lie;  and  the 
priefts,  if  they  can,  may  replant  them.  They 
may,  perhaps,  ftick  them  in  the  ground,  but 
they  will  never  grow." — And  is  it  poffible 
that  you  fhould  think  fo  highly  of  your  per- 
formance, as  to  believe,  that  you  have  there- 
by demoliflied  the  authority  of  a  book  which 
Newton  hhnfelf  efteemed  the  mod  authentic 
of  all  hlftories  ;  which,  by  its  celeftial  light, 
illumines  the  darkeft  ages  of  antiquity; 
which  is  the  touchftone  whereby  we  are 
enabled  to  diftinguifh  between  true  and  fabu- 
lous theology,  between  the  God  of  Ifrael, 
holy,  juft,  and  good,  and  the  impure  rabble 
of  heathen  Baalim;  which  has  been  thought, 
by  competent  judges,  to  have  afforded  mat- 
ter for  the  laws  of  Solon,  and  a  foundation 
for  the  philofophy  of  Plato  ;  which  has  been 


illuftrated  by  the  labour  of  learning,  ia  all 
ages  and  countries;  and  been  admired  and 
venerated  for  its  piety,  its  fublimity,  its  ve- 
racity, by  all  who  were  able  to  read  and  un- 
derftandlit?  No,  Sir;  you  have  gone  indeed, 
through  the  wood,  with  the  beft  intention 
in  the  world  to  cut  it  down;  but  you  have 
merely  bufied  yourfelf  in  expofing  to  vulgar 
contempt  a  few  unfightly  fhrubs,  which 
good  men  had  wrifely  concealed  from  public 
view  ;  you  have  entangled  yourfelf  in  thick- 
ets of  thorns  and  briars ;  you  have  loft  your 
way  on  the  mountains  of  Lebanon  :  the 
goodly  cedar  trees  whereof,  lamenting  the 
madnefs,  and  pitying  the  blinclnefs  of  your 
rage  againft  them,  have  fcorned  the  blunt 
edge  and  the  bafe  temper  of  your  axe,  and 
laughed  unhurt  at  the  feeblenefs  of  your 
ftroke. 

IN  plain  language,  you  have  gone  through 
the  Old  Teftament  hunting  after  difficulties^ 
and  you  hav£  found  fome  real  op^s  ;  thcfe 
you  have  endeavored  to  magnify  into  iniur- 
mountable  objections  to  thr^  authority  of  the 
whole  book.  When  i<;  \s  Confidered  that 
the  Old  Teftament;  is  COSlpofed  of  feveral 
'•flflfcs,  written  '  different  authors,  and  at 
more,  Vpe^lods^  from  Mofes  to  Malachi, 
o  abflrafted  hiftory  of  a  particu- 
r  above  a  thoufand  y  ears,  I  think 
which  o<^cur  in  it  are 
X  2 


H4 

much  fewer,  and  of  much  lefs  importance,  . 
than  could  reafonably  have  been  expefted. 
Apparent  difficulties  you  have  represented 
as  real  ones,  without  hinting  at  the  manner 
in  which  they  have  been  explained.  You 
have  ridiculed  things  held  moft  f acred,  and 
calumniated  characters  efteemed  moft  vene- 
rable ;  you  have  excited  the  feoffs  of  the  pro- 
fane ;  increased  the  fcepticifms  of  the  doubt- 
ful;  fhaken  the  faith  of  the  unlearned;  fug- 
gefted  cavils  to  the  "  difputers  of  this 
v/orld  ;"'and  perplexed  the  minds  of  honed 
men  who  wifli  to  worfhip  the  God  of  their 
fathers  in  lincerity  and  truth. — This  and 
more  you  have  done  in  going  through  the 
Old  Teftament ;  but  you  have  not  fo  much 
as  glanced  at  the  great  defign  of  the  whole, 
at  the  harmony  and  mutual  dependence  of 
the  feveral  parts.  You  havefaicl  nothing  of 
the  wifdom  of  God  in  fele£iing  a  particular 
people  from  the  reft  of  mankind,  not  for 
their  v^wn  fakes,  but  that  they  might  witnefs 
to  tte  \;7hole  world,  in  fucceflive  ages,  his 
'exiflenct:  am/  attributes  ;  that  they  might  be 
an  inftrumenJ  or^bverting  idolatry  ;  ofde- 
daring  hV  m  ft^  God °f  Ifrad  through- 
the 


5*God;  that  t^heCanaanites  fwi^^re  rabble 
had  made\  a  reproach  to 
his  judgments  ;  that  the 
their  deer  i  xrs— • "  That  r 

/ 


to  fpeak  atnifs  of  the  God  of  Ifrael — that  all 
fliould  fear  and  tremble  before  him;'* — and 
it  is  through  them  that  you  and   I,   and  all 
the  world,  are  not  at  this  day  worfhippers  of 
idols.      You    have  faicl  nothing  of  the  good- 
nefs  of  God  in  promifing,  that  through  the 
feed   of   Abraham,    all    the    nations  of   the 
earth  were  to  be  blclled  ;  that  the  ddire  of 
all  nations,  the  blelling  of  Abraham  to   the 
Gentiles,  fliould  come.      You  have  palled  by 
all  the  prophecies  refpecfting  the  coming  of 
the  Meiiiah  ;   though    they  abfolutely   fixed 
the  time  of  his  coming,  and  of  his  being  cut 
off;  defcribed  his  office,   character,  conditi- 
on,   {offerings,  and  death,  in  fo  circumftan- 
tial  a  manner,    that  we   cannot  but  be  afto- 
niflied  at  the  accuracy  of  their  completion  in 
the  perfon  of  Jefus  of  Nazareth.      You  have 
neglefted  noticingthe  teftimony  of  the  whole 
Jew  nil  nation  to  the  truth  both  of  the  natural 
and  miraculonsfa&s  recorded  in  theOldTcfta- 
ment.  That  we  may  better  judge  of  the  weight 
of  this  teftimony,   let  us  (uppofe  that   God 
{hould  now  manifeft  hirnfelf  to  us,  as  we  con- 
tend he  did  to  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  in  the 
defert,  and  in  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  and  that  he 
jfhould  continue  tliefe  manifeftations  of  him- 
Telf  to  our  pofterity  for  a  thoufand  years  or 
more,  punuhing  or  rewarding  them  accord- 
ing as    they   diibbeyed  or  obeyed  his  com- 
mands;   what   would   you   expeft  fliould  be 
the  iffue  ?  You  would   exped  that  our  pof- 


n6' 

terity  would,  in  the  remoteft  period  of  time, 
adhere  to  their  God,  and  maintain  againft  all 
opponents  the  truth  of  the  books  in  which 
the  difpenlations  of  God  to  us  and  toourfuc- 
ceffors  had  been  recorded.  They  would  not 
yield  to  the  objections  of  men,  who,  not 
having  experienced  the  fame  divine  govern- 
ment, fliould,  for  want  of  fuch  experience, 
refufe  affent  to  their  teftimony,  No  ;  they 
would  be  to  the  then  furrounding  nations, 
what  the  Jews  are  to  us,  witnefTes  of  theex- 
iftence  and  of  the  moral  government  of  GocL 


LETTER    VII. 


HE  New  Teftament,  they  tell  us, 
is  founded  upon  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  :  if 
fo,  it  rnuft  follow 'the  fate  of  its  foundation." 
Thus  you  open  your  attack  upon  the  New 
Teftament;  and  I  agree  with  you,  that  the 
New  Teftament  muft  follow  the  fate  of  the 
Old  ;  and  that  fate  is  to  remain  unimpaired  by 
fuch  efforts  as  you  have  made  againft  it.  The 
New  Teftament,  however,  is  not  founded 
folely  on  the  prophecies  of  the  Old.  If  an, 
heathen  from  Athens  or  Rome,  who  had  never 
heard  of  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Teftament, 
had  been  an  eye- wit nefs  of  the  miracles  of  Je- 
fus,  he  would  have  made  the  fame  concluiion 
that  the  Jew  Nicodemus  did— u  Rabbi,  we 
know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God; 
for  no  man  can  do  thefe  miracles  that  thou 
doeft,  except  God  be  with  him." — Our  Savi- 
our tells  the  Jews — "  Had  ye  believed  Moles, 
ye  would  have  believed  me;  for  he  wrote  of 


n8 

me:*'  —  and  he  bids  them  fearch  the  fcrip- 
tures,  for  they  teftified  of  him:—  but,  not- 
withftanding  this  appeal  to  the  prohecies  of 
the  Old  Teftament,  Jefus  faid  to  the  Jews, 
46  Though  ye  believe  not  in  me,  believe  the 
works"  —  "  believe  me  for  the  very  works' 
fake"—  "  If  I  had  not  done  among  them  the 
works  which  none  other  man  did,  they  had 
not  had  fin."  —  Thefe  arefufficient  proofs  that 
the  truth  of  Chrift's  million  was  not  even  to 
the  Jews,  much  lefs  to  the  gentiles,  founded 
folely  on  the  truth  of  the  prophecies  of  the 
Old  Teftament.  So  that  if  you  could  prove 
ibme  of  thele  prophecies  to  have  been  mifap- 
plied,  and  not  completed  in  the  perfon  of 
Jefus,  the  truth  of  the  Chriftian  religion 
would  not  thereby  be  overturned.  —  That 
Jefus  of  Nazareth  was  the  perfon,  in  whom 
all  the  prophecies,  direft  and  typical,  in  the 
Old  Teftament,  reipefting  the  Meffiah,  were 
fulfilled,  is  a  proposition  founded  on  thofe 
prophecies,  and  to  be  proved  by  comparing 
them  with  the  hiftory  of  his  life.  That  Je- 
fus was  a  prophet  fcnt  from  God,  is  one  pro- 
poiition  —  that  Jefus  was  the  prophet,  the 
Meffiah,  is  another;  and  though  he  certainly 
was  both  a  prophet  and  the  prophet,  yet  the 
foundations  of  the  proof  of  thde  propofi- 
are  feparate  and  diftin£t. 


THE  mere  exiftence  "of  fnch  a  woman  as 
Mary,  and  of  fuch  a  man  as  Jofeph,   andje- 


119 

fus,"  is,  you  fay,  a  matter  of  indifference,  a- 
bout  which  there  is  no  ground  either  to  be- 
lieve or  to  diibelieve. — Belief  is  differenP 
from  knowledge^  with  which  you  here  feem 
to  confound  it.  We  know  that  the  whole  is 
greater  than  its  part — and  we  know  that  all 
the  angel^n  the  fame  fegment  of  a  circle  are 
equal  to  each  other — we  have  intuition  and 
demonftration  as  grounds  of  this  knowledge; 
but  is  there  no  ground  for  belief  of  paft  or  fu- 
ture exiftenre?  Is  there  no  ground  for  believ- 
ing that  the  fun  will  exift  to-morrow,  and 
that  your  father  exifted  before  yon  ?  You 
condefcend,  however,  to  think  it  probable, 
that  there  were  fnch  perfons  as  Mary,  Jo- 
feph,  and  Jefus;  and  without  troubling  your- 
fclf  about  their  exiftence  or  non-exiftence, 
a{Tuming,as  it  were,  for  the  fake  of  argument, 
but  without  pofitively  granting,  their  exift- 
ence, you  proceed  to  inform  us,  "  that  it  is 
the  fable  of  Jefus  Chrift,  as  told  in  the  New 
Teftament,  and  the  wild  and  vifionary  doc- 
trine raifed  thereon,"  againft  which  you  con- 
tend. You  will  not  repute  it  a  fable,  that 
there  \vas  fuch  a  man  as  Jefus  Chrift  ;  that 
he  lived  in  Juclea  near  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago  ;  that  he  went  about  doing  good, 
and  preaching,  not  only  in  the  villages  of 
Galilee,  but  in  the  city  of  Jerufalem  ;  that  he 
had  leveral  followers,  who  conflantly  atten- 
ded him  ;  that  he  was  put  to  death  by  Pon- 
tius Pilate,  that  his  dilciplcs  were  numerous 


X  i/'VJ* 


120 

a  few  years  after  his  death,  not  only  in  Ju- 
dea,  but  in  Rome,  the  capital  of  the  world, 
Mid  in  every  province  of  the  Roman  empire; 
that  a  particular  day  has  been  obierved  in  a 
religious  manner  by  all  his  followers,  in  com- 
memoration of  a  real  or  fuppofed  refurre&i- 
on  ;  and  that  the  eonftant  celebration  of  bap- 
tifm,  and  of  the  Lord's  fupper,  may  be  tra- 
ced back  from  the  preient  time  to  him,  as  the 
author  of  thofe  inflitutions.  Thefe  things 
constitute,  I  fuppofe,  no  part  of  your  fable  ; 
and  if  thefe  things  be  fafts,  they  will,  when 
maturely  considered,  draw  after  them  fo 
many  other  things  related  in  the  New  Tefla- 
ment  concerning  Jeibs,  that  there  will  be  left 
for  your  fable  but  very  fcanty  materials, 
which  will  require  great  fertility  of  inventi- 
on, before  you  will  drefs  them  up  into  any 
form  which  will  not  difg-uft  even  a  fuperfici- 
al  obierver. 

THE  miraculous  conception  you  efteem  a 
fable,  and  in  your  mind  it  is  an  obicene  fable. 
. — Impure  indeed  rnuft  that  man's  imaginati- 
on be,  who  can  difcover  any  obfcenity  in  the 
angel's  declaration  to  Mary — The  Holy 
Ghoft  (hall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power 
of  the  Highcil  fliall  overfliadow  thee,  there- 
fore that  Holy  thing  which  fhall  be  born  of 
thee  fhall  be  called  the  Son  of  God. — I  won- 
der you  do  not  find  cbfcenity  in  Genefis, 
where  it  is  faid,  "  The  Spirit  of  God  moved 


121 

upon  the  face  of  the  waters,"  and  brou 
order  out  of  confufion,  a  world  out  of  a 
os,  by  his  foftering  influence.  As  to 
Chriftian  faith  being  built  upon  the  heathen 
mythology,  there  is  no  ground  whatever  for 
the  affertion  ;  there  would  have  been  fome 
for  faying.that  much  of  the  heathen  mytho- 
logy was  built  upon  the  events  recorded  in 
the  Old  Teftament. 

You  come  now  to  a  demonftration,  01% 
which  amounts  to  the  fame  thing,  to  a  pro- 
pofition  which  cannot,  you  (ay,  be  contro- 
verted: — firft,   "  that  the  agreement  of  all 
the  parts  of  a  ftory  does  not  prove  that  fto- 
ry to  be  true,  becaufe  the  parts  may  agree 
and  the  whole  may  be  falfe  ;— fecondly,  That 
the  dif agreement  of  the  parts  of  a  ftory  proves 
that  the  whole  cannot  be  true.      The  agree- 
ment does  not  prove  truth,  but  the  difagree- 
ment  proves  falfehood   poiltively."     Great 
ufe,  I  perceive,  is  to  be  made  of  this  propo- 
fition.      You  will  pardon  my  unfkilfulnefs  in 
dialectics,    if  I   prefume   to  controvert  the 
truth  of  this  abltra<£t  propofition,  as  applied 
to  any  purpofe  in  life.     The  agreement  of 
the  parts  of  a  ftory  implies  that  the  ftory  has 
been  told  by  at  leaft  two  peribns  (the  life  of 
Doctor  Johnfon,  for  inftance,  by  Sir  John 
Hawkins  and  Mr.  Bofwell).     Now  I  think 
it  fcarcely  poffible  for  even  two  perfons,  and 
the  difficulty  is  increafed  if  there  are  more 
L 


122 

than  two,  to  write  the  hiftory  of  the  life  of 
any  one  of  their  acquaintance,  without  there 
being  a  confiderable  difference  between  them, 
with  refpeft  to  the  number  and  order  of  the 
incidents  of  his  life.  Some  things  will  be 
omitted  by  one,  and  mentioned  by  the  other  ; 
ibrne  things  will  be  briefly  touched  by  one, 
and  the  fame  things  will  be  circumftantiaily 
detailed  by  the  other;  the  fame  things  which 
are  mentioned  in  the  fame  way  by  them  both, 
may  not  be  mentioned  as  havinghappened  ex- 
aftly  at  the  fame  point  of  time,  with  other 
poffible  and  probable  differences.  But  thefe 
real  or  apparent  difficulties,  inrainutecircum- 
fiances,  will  not  invalidate  their  teflimony  as 
to  the  material  tranfaftions  of  his  life,  much 
lefs  will  they  render  the  whole  of  it  a  fable. 
If  feveral  independent  witneffes,  of  fair  cha- 
ra£ter,  iho.ii Id  agree  in  all  the  parts  of  a  fto- 
ry,  (in  teftifying,  for  inftance,  that  a  murder 
or  a  robbery  was  committed  at  a  particular 
time,  in  a  particular  place,  and  by  a  certain 
individual,)  ,  every  court  of  juftice  in  the 
.world, -would  admit  the  fa  ft,  notwithftarid- 
ing  the  abftratt  poffibility,  of  the  whole  be- 
ing falfe  : again,  if  feveral  honed  men 

Ihould  agree  in  faying,  that  they  faw  the  king 
of  France  beheaded,  though  they  fliould  dif- 
agree  as  to  the  figure  of  the  guillotine  or  the 
fiz,e  of  his  executioner,  as  to  the  king's  hands 
being  bound  or  loofe,  as  to  his  being  com- 
pofed  or  agitated  in  afcending  the  fcafibld,  yet  ^ 


every  court  of  juflice  in  the  world  would 
think/ that  fuch  difference,  refpedting  the 
circumftances  of  the  fadt,  did  not  in- 
validate the  evidence  reflecting  the  fadt 
itfelf.  \Vhen  yon  fpeak  of  the  whole  of  a 
ftory,  you  cannot  mean  every  particular 
c'ircnmftance  connedted  with  the  ftory,  but 
not  eflential  to  it  ;  you  muft  mean  the  pith 
and  marrow  of  the  ftory  ;  for  it  would  be 
impoffible  to  eftablifh  the  truth  of  any  fad!:, 
(of  admirals  Byng  or  Keppel,  for  example, 
having  negledled  or  not  negledted  their  duty,) 
if  a  difagreement  in  the  evidence  of  witnefTes 
in  minute  points,  fhould  be  confidered  as  an- 
nihilating the  weight  of  their  evidence  in, 
points  of  importance.  In  a  word,  the  rela- 
tion of  a  fadl  differs  effentially  from  the  de- 
monftration  of  a  theorem.  If  one  ftep  is  left 
out,  one  link  in  the  chain  of  ideas  conftituting 
a  deroonftration  is  emitted,  the  conclufion 
will  be  deltroyed  ;  but  a  fact  may  be  eftablifh- 
ecl,  notwithllanding  a  difagreement  of  the 
witneffrs  in  certain  trifling  particulars  of 
their  evidence  vefpedling  if. 

You  apply  your  incontrovertible  propofi- 
tion  to  the  genealogies  of  Chrift  given  by 
Matthew  and  Luke — there  is  a  difagreement 
between  them  ;  therefore,  you  fay,  ^  If  Mat- 
thew fpake  truth,  Luke  fpeaks  ,  falfehood  ; 
and  if  Luke  fpeak  truth,  Matthew  fpeaks 
falfehood  ;  and  thence  there  is  no  authority 


124 

for  believing  cither  ;  and  if  they  cannot  be 
b-lieved  even  in  the  very  firft  thing  they  fay 
and  fet  out  to  prove,  they  are  not  entitled  to 
-be  believed  in  any  thing  they  fay  after- 
wards." I  cannot  admit  either  your  premi- 
fes  or  your  conclufion — not  your  conclu- 
ilon  ;  bccaufe  two  authors,  who  differ  in  tra- 
cing back  the  pedigree  of  an  individual  for 
above  athoufaixl  years,  cannot,  on  that  ac- 
count, be  efteerned  incompetent  to  bear  tefti- 
niony  to  the  tranfaftions  of  his  life,  unlefs 
an  intenti©n  to  falfify  could  be  proved 
againft  them.  If  two  Welfh  hiflorians 
fhould  at  this  time  write  the  life  of  any  re- 
markable man  of  their  country,  who  had 
been  dead  twenty  or  thirty  years,  and  flroukl 
through  different  branches  of  their  genealo- 
gical tree,  carry  up  the  pedigree  to  Cadival- 
lont  would  they,  on  account  of  that  difference 
be  difcredited  in  every  thing  they  faid  ? 
Might  it  not  be  believed  that  they  gave  the 
pedigree  as  they  had  found  it  recorded  in 
different  inftruments,  but  without  the  lead 
intention  to  write  a  falfehood  ? — I  cannot 
admit  your  premises  ;  becaufe  Matthew 
fpeaks  truth,  and  Lukefpeaks  truth,  though 
they  clo  not  fpeak  the  fame  truth  ;  Matthew 
giving  the  genealogy  of  Jofeph,  the  reputed 
father  of  Jefus,  and  Luke  giving  the  genealo- 
gy of  Mary,  the  real  mother  of  Jefus.  If 
you  will  not  admit  this,  other  explanations 
of  the  difficulty  might  be  given  ;  but  I  hold 


125 

it  fufficient  to  fay,  that  the  authors  had  no  de- 
fign  to  deceive  the  reatler,  that  they  took 
their  accounts  .from  the  public  regifters, 
which  were  carefully  kept,  and  that  had 
7  been  fabricators,  of  thefe  .genealogies, 
they  would  have  beenexpofed  at  the  time  to 
inftaht  detection  ;  and  the,  certainty  of  that 
cle-t^ftioii.wojuld  have  presented  them  from 
making  the  attempt  to  impofc  a  falfe  genealo- 
gy on. the  Jcwifh  nation. 

BUT  that  you  may  effectually  overthrow 
the  credit  of  thefe  genealogies,  you  make  the 
following  calculation  : — "  From  the  birth  of 
David  to  the  birth  of  Chrift  is  upwards  of 
1080  years  ;  and  as  there  were  but  27  full  ge- 
nerations, to  find  the  average  age  of  each  per- 
fon  mentioned  in  St.  Matthew's  lift  at  the 
time  his  fir  ft  fon  was  born,  it  is  only  necef- 
fary  to  divide  1080  by  27,  which  gives  4.0 
years  for  each  perfon.  As  the  life-time  of 
man  was  then  but  of  the  fame  extent  it  is  now, 
it  is  an  abfurdity  to  fuppofe,  that  27  genera- 
tions fhoukl  all  be  old  bachelors,  before  they 
married.  So  far  from  this  genealogy  being 
a  folemn  truth,  it  is  not  even  a  reafonable  lie." 
— This  argument  aflumes  the  appearance  of 
arithmetical  accuracy,  and  the  conclufion  is 
in  a  ftyle  which  even  its  truth  would  not  ex- 
cufe: — yet  the  argument  is  good  for  nothing, 
and  the  conclufion  is  not  true.  You  have 
read  the  Bible  with  fome  attention ;  and  you 
L  2 


126 

are  extremely  liberal  in  imputing  to  it  lies 
and  abfurdities;  read  it  over  again,  efpecially 
the  books  of  the  Chronicles,  and  you  will 
there  find,  that,  in  the  genealogical  lift  of 
St.  Matthew,  three  generations  are  omitted 
between  Joram  and  Ozias  ;  Joram  was  the 
father  of  Azariah,  Axariah  of  Joafli,  Joafh 
of  Amaz,iah,  and  Amaziah  of  OzJas. — I  in- 
quire not,  in  this  place,  whence  this  cmiffion 
proceeded;  whether  it  is  to  be  attributed  to 
an  error  in  the  genealogical  tables  from 
whence  Matthew  took  his  account,  or  to  a 
corruption  of  the  text  of  the  evangelift  ;  flill 
it  is  an  omiffion.  Now  if  you  will  add  thefe 
three  generations  to  the  27  you  mention,  and 
divide  1080  by  30,  you  will  find  the  aver- 
age age  when  thefe  Jews  had  each  of  them 
their  firft  fon  born,  was  36.  They  married 
fooner  than  they  ought  to  have  done,  accord- 
ing to  Arillotle,  who  fixes  thirty-feven  as 
the  moit  proper  age,  when  a  man  fhould 
marry.  Nor  was  it  neceflary  that  they  (hould 
have  been  old  bachelors,  though  each  of  them 
had  net  a  fon  to  fucceed  him  till  he  was  thir- 
ty-fix ;  they  might  have  been  married  at 
twenty,  without  having  a  fon  till  they  were 
forty.  You  affume  in  your  argument  that 
the  firft-born  fon  fucceeded  the  father  in  the 
lift — this  is  not  true.  Solomon  fucceeded 
David  ;  yet  David  had  at  leaft  fix  fons,  who 
were  grown  to  manhood  before  Solomon  was 
born  j  and  Rehobpam  had  at  leaft  three  fons 


127 

before  he  had  Abia  (Abijah)  who  fucceeded 
him.  It  is  needlefs  to  cite  more  inflances  to 
this  purpofe;  but  from  thefe,  and  other  cir- 
cumflances  which  might  be  infifted  upon,  I 
can  fee  no  ground  for  believing,  that  the  ge- 
nealogy of  Jefus  Chrifl  mentioned  by  St. 
Matthew,  is  not  a  folemn  truth. 

You  inilft  much  upon  fome  things  being- 
mentioned  by  one  evangelift,  which  are  not 
mentioned  by  all  or  any  of  the  others;  and  you 
take  this  to  be  a  reafon  why  we  fhould  con- 
fider  the  gofpels,  not  as  the  works  of  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  but  as  the  pro- 
du'fcions  of  fome  unconnected  individuals,  each 
of  whom  made  his  own  legend.  I  do  not  ad- 
mit the  truth  of  this  fuppofition;  but  I  may 
be  allowed  to  ufe  it  as  an  argument  againft 
yourfelf — it  removes  every  poilible  fufpicion 
of  fraud  and  impofture,  and  confirms  the  gof- 
pel  hiftory  in  the  ftrongeft  manner.  Four 
unconnected  individuals  have  each  written 
memoirs  of  the  life  of  Jeius;  from  whatever 
fource  they  derived  their  materials,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  they  agree  in  a  great  many  particu- 
lars of  the  Lift  importance ;  fuch  as  the  puri- 
ty of  his  manners  ;  the  fanctity  of  his  doc- 
trines;  the  multitude  and  publicity  of  his 
miracles ;  the  perfecuting  fpirit  of  his  ene- 
mies ;  the  manner  of  his  death ;  and  the  cer- 
tainty of  his  refurre&ion  ;  and  whilft  they 
agree  in  thefe  great  points,  their  difagree- 


128 

ment  in  points  ef  little  cbnfequence,  is  ratfier 
a  confirmation  of  the  truth,  than  an  indica- 
tion of  the  faliehood,  of  their  feveral  accounts. 
— Had  they  agreed  in  nothing,  their  teftimo- 
ny  ought  to  have  been  rejected  as  a  legenda- 
ry tale;  h?d  they  agreed  in  every  thing,  it 
might  have  been  impeded,  that  inftead  of  uh- 
conneftcd  individuals,  they  were  a  let  of  im- 
poflors.  The  manner  in  which  the  evange- 
lifts  have  recorded  the  particulars  of  the  life 
of  Jefus,  is  wholly  conformable  to  what  we 
experience  in  other  biographers,  and  claims 
our  higher!  affert  to  its  truth,  notwithiland- 
ing  the  force  of  your  incontrovertible  propt>- 
fltion. 

As  .an  inftance  of  contradi&ion  between  the 
evangelifts,  you  tell  us,  that  Matthew  fays, 
the  angel  announcing  the  immaculate  concep- 
tion appeared  unto  Joieph;  but  Luke  fays,  he 
appeared  unto  Mary.  The  angel,  Sir,  appeared 
to  them  both j  to  Mary,  when  he  informed  her 
that  ilie  fliould  by  the  power  of  God,  con- 
ceive a  fon  ;  to  Jofeph,  forne  months  after- 
wards, when  Mary's  pregnancy  wasviiible; 
in  the  interim  fhe  had  paid  a  vifit  of  three 
months  to  her  coufin  Elizabeth.  It  might 
have  been  expected,  that,  from,  the  accuracy 
with  which  you  have  read  your  Bible,  you 
could  not  have  confounded  thefe.obvioufly- 
diftinft  appearances;  but  men,  even  of  can- 
dour, are  liable  to  miflakcs.  Who,  you  afk? 


would  now  believe  a  girl,  who  fhould  fay 
fhe  was  gotten  with  child  by  a  ghoft  ? — Who 
but  yourfelf,  would  ever  have  afked  a  quefti- 
on  fo  abominably  indecent  and  profane  ?  I 
cannot  argue  with  you  on  this  fubjeft. — 
You  will  never  perfuade  the  world,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  has  any  refemblanee 
to  the_ftage  ghofts  in  Hamlet  or  Macbeth, 
from  which  you  feem  to  have  derived  your 
idea  of  it. 

THE  {lory  of  the  maflacre  of  the  young 
children  by  the  order  of  Herod,  is  mention- 
ed only  by  Matthew  ;  and  therefore  you 
think  it  is  a  lie.  We  mud  give  up  all  hif- 
tory  if  we  refufe  to  admit  fafts  recorded  by 
only  one  hiftorian.  Matthew  acklrefled  his 
gofpel  to  the  Jews,  and  put  them  in  mind  of  a 
.  circumflance  of  which  they  muft  have  had  a 
melancholy  remembrance  ;  but  gentile  con- 
verts were  lefs  interefted  in  that  event. 
The  evangelifts  were  not  writing  the  life  of 
Herod,  but  of  Jeius  ;  it  is  no  wonder  that 
they  omitted,  above  half  a  century  after  the 
death  of  Herod,  an  infhance  of  his  cruelty, 
which  was  not*  effentially  connected  with 
their  fubjecl.  The  mafTacre,  however,  was 
probably  known  even  at  Rome  ;  and  it  was 
certainly  correfpondent  to  the  character  of 
Herod.  John  you  fay,  at  the  time  of  the 
matfacre,  •<•  was  under  two  years  of  age,  and 
yet  he  efcaped ,  &  that  the  (lory  circumftan- 


tially  belies  itfelf." J°^n  was  ^x  months 

older  than  Jefus  ;  and  yon  cannot  prove  that 
he  was  not  beyond  the  age  to  which  the  or- 
der of  Herod  extended ;  it  probably  reached 
no  farther  that  to  thofe  who  had  completed 
their  firfl  year,  without  including  thofe  who 
had  entered  upon  their  fecond  :  but  without 
in  fi  ft  ing  upon  this  ftill,  I  contend  that  you 
cannot  prove  John  to  have  been  under  two 
years  of  age  at  the  time  of  the  ma  fiacre  ; 
and  I  could  give  many  probable  reafons  to 
the  contrary.  Nor  is  it  certain  that  John 
was,  at  that  time,  in  that  part  of  the  country 
to  which  the  eclidi'  of  Herod  extended. 
But  there  would  be  no  end  of  anfwering,  at 
length,  all  your  little  objections. 

No  two  of  the  evangelifts,  you  obferve, 
agree  in  reciting  exactly  in  the  j a  me  words, 
the  written  infcription  which  was  put  over 
Chrift  when  he  was  crucified. — I  admit  that 
there  is  an  unelTential  verbal  difference;  and 
are  you  certain  that  there  was  not  a  verbal 
difference  in  the  inicriptions  themfelves  ? — 
One  was  written  in  Hebrew,  another  in 
Greek,  another  in  Latin  ;  and,  though  they 
had  ali  the  fame  meaning,  yet  it  is  probable, 
that  if  two  men  had  tranflated  the  Hebrew 
and  the  Latin  into  Greek,  there  would  have 
been  a  verbal  difference  between  their  tranf- 
lations.  You  have  rendered  yourfrl^raous 
by  writing  a  book  called- ^rriie  Rights  of 


131 

Man: — -had  you  been  guillotined  by  Robef- 
pierre,  with  this  title,  written  in  French, 
Englifh,  and  German,  and  affixed  to  the 
guillotine — Thomas  Paine,  of  America,  au- 
thor of  The  Rights  of  Man — and  had  four 
perfons.  forneof  whom  had  feen  the  execu- 
tion, and  the  reft  had  heard  of  it  from  eye- 
witnelFes,  written  fliort  accounts  of  your 
life  twenty  years  or  more  after  your  death, 
and  one  had  faid  the  infcription  was  — This 
is  Thomas  Paine,  the  author  of  The  Rights 
of  Man — another,  The  author  of  The  Rights 
of  Man — -a  third,  This  is  the  author  of  The 
Rights  of  Man — and  a  fourth,  Thomas  Paine 
of  America,  the  author  of  the  Rights  of  Man 
< — would  any  man  of  common  fcnfe  have 
doubted,  on  account  of  this  disagreement, 
the  veracity  of  the  authors  in  writing  your 
life  ? — "  The  only  one,"  you  tell  us/"  of 
the  men  called  apoftles,  who  appears  to  have 
been  near  the  fpot  where  Je-fiis  was  crucified 
v/as  Peter."- — This  your  aflertion  is  not  true 
— we  do  not  know  that  Peter  was  prefent  at 
the  crucifixion  ;  but  we  do  know  that  John, 
the  difciple  whom  jcfus  loved,  was  prefent  ; 
for  Jefus  {poke  to  him  from  the  crofs. — You 
go  on,  "  But  why  fbould  we  believe  Peter, 
convicted  by  their  own  account  of  perjury, 
in  fwearing  that  he  knew  not  Jefus  ?"  I 
will  tell  you  why- — becaufe  Peter  fincercly 
repented  of  the  wickeclnefs  into  which  he  had 
been  betrayed,  through  fear  for  his  life,  and 


fnffered  martyrdom  in  atteflation  of  the  truth 
of  the  Chriftian  religion. 

BUT  the  evangelifts  difagree,  you  fay,  not 
only  as  to  the  fuperfcription  on  the  crofs, 
but  as  to  the  time  of  the  cruqifixion,  "  Mark 
faying  it  was  at  the  third  hour  (nine  in  the 
morning,)  and  John'.at  the  fixth  hour  (twelve 
as  you  fuppoft,  at  noon."  Various  folutions 
have  been  given  of  this  difficulty,  none  of 
which  fatisfied  Do£tor  Middleton,  much  lei's 
can  it  be  expefted  that  any  of  them  fhould 
fatisfy  you  ;  but  there  is  afolution  not  noti- 
ced by  him,  in  which  many  judicious  men 
haveacquiefcec! — 'That  John  writing  hisgof- 
pel  in  Afia,  ufed  the  Roman  method  of  com- 
puting time  ;  which  was  the  fame  as  our 
own  ;  fo  that  by  the  fixth  hour,  when  Jefus 
was  condemned,  -we  are  to  underftand  fix 
o'clock  in  the  morning;  the  intermediate  time 
from  fix  to  nine,  when  he  was  crucified,  be- 
ing employed  in  preparing  for  the  crucifixi- 
on. But  if  this  difficulty  fhould  be  -ftill  ef- 
teemed  infuperable,  it  docs  not  follow  that 
-it  will  always  remain  fo ;  and  if  it  fhould, 
the  main  point,  the  crucifixion  of  Jefus,  will 
not  be  affe&ed  thereby. 

I  CANNOT,  in  this  place,  omit  remarking 
fomecirciiinftances  attending  the  crucifixion, 
which  are  fo  natural,  that  we  might  have 
wondered  if  they  had  not  occnrech  Of  al] 


the  difciples  of  Jefus,  John  was  beloved  by 
him  with  a  peculiar  degree  of  affe&ion  ;  and, 
as  kindnefs  produces  kindnefs,  there  can  b^ 
little  doubt  that  the  regard  was   reciprocal. 
Now  whom  fhould  we  expert  to  be  the  at- 
tendants of  Jefus  in  his  laft  fuffering  ?  Whom 
but  John,  the  friend  of  his  heart  ? — Whom 
but  his  mother,  whofe  foul  was  now  pierced 
through  by  the  fword  of  forrow,  which  Si- 
meon had  foretold  ? — Whom  but  thofe,  who 
had  been  attached  to  him  through  life ;  who, 
having  been  healed  by  him  of  their  infirmi- 
ties were  impelled  by  gratitude  to  minifter 
to   him  of  their  fubftance,    to  be  attentive 
to    all  his    wants  ? — Thefe  were   the    per- 
fons  whom  we  fhould  have  expelled  to  at- 
tend his  execution  ;   and    thefe  were   there. 
To  whom  would  an  expiring  ion,  of  thebeft 
affections,  recommend  a  poor,  and,  probably, 
a  widowed  mother,  but  to  his  warmed  friend? 
— 'And  this  did  Jefus — Unmindful  of  the  ex- 
tremity of  his  own  torture,  and  anxious  to 
alleviate  the  burden  of  her  forrows,  and  to 
protect  her   old  age  from  future   want  and 
mif  ey,he  faidtohisbeloveddifciple — "  Be- 
hold thy  mother  !   and   from  that  hour  that 
difciple  took  her  to  his  own  home."    I  own 
to  you,   that  fuch  inftances  as  thefe,  of  the 
conformity  of  events  to  our  probable  expec- 
tation are  to   me  genuine  marks  of  the  fiin- 
plicity  and  truth  of  the  gofpels  ;  and  far  out- 
weigh a  thoufand  little  objections,   aiifing 
from  our  ignorance  of  manners,  times,  and 
M 


'54 

circnmflances,  or  from  our  incapacity  to 
comprehend  the  means  ufecl  by  the  Supreme 
Being  in  the  moral  government  of  his  crea- 
tures. 

ST.  MATTHEW  mentions  feveral  miracles 
•which  attended  our  Saviour's  crucifixion — 
thcdarknefs  which  overfpread  the  land—the 
rending  of  the  veil  of  the  temple—an  earth- 
quake which  rent  the  rocks- — and  the  refur- 
reft  ion  of  many  faints,  and  their  going  into 
the  holy  city. — "  Such,"  you  fay, tfc  is  the  ac- 
count which  this  dafhing  writer  of  the  book 
of  Matthew  gives,  bur  in  which  he  is  not 
fupported  by  the  writers  of  the  other  books." 
This  is  not  accurately  expreifed  ;  Matthew 
is  fupported  by  Mark  and  Luke,  with  refpeft 
to  two  of  the  miracles — the  clarknefs-— and 
the  rending  of  the  veil : — and  their  omiffion 
of  the  others  does  not  prove,  that  they  were 
either  ignorant  of  them,  ordilbelieved  them. 
I  think  it  idle  to  pretend  to  fay  pofitively 
what  influenced  them  to  mention  only  two 
miracles;  they  probably  thought  them  fuf- 
ficient  to  convince  any  perfon,  as  they  con- 
vinced the  centurion,  that  Jefus  "  was  a 
righteous  man, — 4i  the  Son  of  God."  And 
thefe  two  miracles  were  better  calculated  to 
produce  general  conviction,  amongil  the  per- 
fons  for  whofe  benefit  Mark  and  Luke  wrote 
their  gofpcls,  than  either  the  earthquake  or 
the  refurrcdtion  of  the  faints.  The  earth- 


qaake  was,  probably  confined  to  a  particular 
fpot,  and  might,  by  an  obje£tor,  have  been 
called  a  natural  phenomenon  ;  and  thofe  to 
whom  the  faints  appeared  might,  at  the  time 
of.  wiiting  the  gofpels  of  Mark  and  Luke, 
have  been  dead  :  but  the  uarknefs  mud  have 
been  generally  kno<wi  and  remembered  ;  and 
the  veil  of  the  temple  might  frill  be  preferv- 
Cvi  at  the  time  thefe  authors  wrote. — As  to 
John  not  mentioning  any  of  thefe  miracles — 
it  is  v;ell  known  that  his  gofpel  was  written 
as  a  fupplement  to  the  other  gofpels  ;  he  has 
therefore  omitted  many  things  which  the 
other  three  evangelists  had  related,  and  he 
has  added  feveral  things  which  they  had  not 
mentioned  ;  in  particular,  he  has  added  a  cir- 
cumftance  of  great  importance;  he  tells  us 
that  he  faw  one  of  the  foldiers  pierce  the  fide 
of  Jefus  with  afpear,  and  that  blood  and  wa- 
ter flowed  through  the  wound;  and  left  any- 
one ftiould  doubt  of  the  fad,  from  its  not  be- 
ing mentioned  by  the  other  evangelills,  he 
afferts  it  with  peculiar  earneitnefs — "  And 
he  that  faw  it,  bare  record,  and  his  record  is 
true  :  and  he  knoweth  that  he  faith  true,  that 
ye  might  believe." — John  faw  blood  and  wa- 
ter flowing  from  the  wound;  the  blood  is 
eafily  accounted  for,  but  whence  came  the 
water  ?  The  anatomifls  tell  us — it  came  from 
the  pericardium: — fo  confiftent  is  evangeli- 
cal teftiniony  with  the  mofl  curious  re- 
fearches  into  natural  fcience! — You  amufe 


yourfelf  with  the  account  of  what  the  fcrip- 
tare  calls  many  faints,  and  yon  call  an  army  of 
faints,  and  are  angry  with  .Matthew  for  not 
having  told  you  a  great  many  things  about 
them. — It  is  very  poffible  that  Matthew 
might  have  known  the  faft  of  their  refur- 
re£non,  without  knowing  every  thing  about 
them  ;  but  if  he  had  gratified  your  curiofity 
in  every  particular,  I  am  of  opinion  that  you 
'v/ould  not  have  believed  a  word  of  what  he- 
had  told  you.  I  have  no  curiofity  on  the 
fubjeft :  it  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that 
44  Chrift  was  the  firft  fruits  of  them  that 
flept,"  and  "that  all  that  are  in  the  graves 
fhall  hear  his  voice  and  (hall  come  forth,"  as 
thofe  holy  men  did,  who  heard  the  voice  of 
the  Son  of  God  at  his  refurredtion,  and  pall- 
ed from  death  to  life.  If  I  durft  indulge  my- 
felf  in  being  wife  above  what. is  written;  I 
rnuft  be  able  to  anfwer  many  of  your  inqui- 
ries relative  to  thefe  faints;*  but  I  dare  not 
touch  the  ark  of  the  Lord,  I  dare  not  fup- 
port  the  authority  of  the  fcripture  by  the 
holdnefs  of  conjecture.  Whatever  difficulty 
there  may  be  in  accounting  for  the  filence 
of  the  other  evangelifts,  and  of  St.  Paulalfo, 
on  this  fubjeft,  yet  there  is  a  greater  diffi- 
culty in  fhppofing  that  Matthew  did  not 
give  a  true  narration  of  what  had  happened 
at  the  crucifixion.  If  there  had  been  no  fu- 
pernatural  darknefs,  no  earthquake,  no  rend- 
ing of  the  veil  of  the  temple,  no  graves  open- 


'37 

cd,  no  refurredtion  of  holy  men,  no  appear- 
ance of  them  unto  many — if  none  of  thefe 
things  had  been  true,  or  rather  if  any  one  of 
them  had  been  faife,  what  motive  could  Mat- 
thew, writing  to  the  Jews,  have  had  for 
trumping  up  fuch  wonderful  ftories  ?  He 
wrote,  as  every  man  does,  with  an  intenti- 
on to  be  believed  ;  and  yet  every  Jew  he  met 
would  have  flared  him  in  the  face,  and  told 
him  that  he  was  a  liar  and  an.  impoftor. 
What  author,  who  twenty  years  hence 
fliould  addrefs  to  the  French  nation  an  hifto- 
ry  of  Louis  XVI.  would  venture  to  affirm, 
that  when  he  was  beheaded  there  was 
darknefs  for  three  hours  over  all  France? 
that  there  was  an  earthquake  ?  that  rocks 
•wercfplit?  graves  opened?  and  dead  men 
brought  to  life,  who  appeared  to  many  per- 
fons  in  Paris  ?• — It  is  quite  impoffible  to  fup- 
poie,  that  any  one  would  dare  to  publifhiuch 
obvious  lies;  and  I  think  it  equally  impoffi- 
ble to  fuppofe,  that  Matthew  would  have 
dared  to  publilli  his  account  of  what  happen- 
ed at  the  death  of  Jefus,  had  not  the  account 
been  generally  known  to  be  true. 


M  2 


LETTER    VIII. 


T. 


H  E    "  talc  of  the  refurreftion,"    you 

fay,  "  follows  that  of  the  crucifixion." — You 
have  accuftomed  me  fo  much  to  this  kind  of 
language,  that  when  T  find  you  fpeaking  of  a 
tale,  I  have  no  doubt  of  meeting  with  a  truth. 
From  the  apparent  difagreement  in  the  ac- 
counts, which  the  evangelifts  have  given  of 
fome  circumflances  refpefting  the  refurre&i- 
on,  you  remark — "  If  the  writers  of  thefe 
books  had  gone  into  any  court  of  juftice  to 
prove  an  alibi  (for  it  is  the  nature  of  an  alibi 
that  is  here  attempted  to  be  proved,  namely, 
the  abfence  of  a  dead  body  by  fupernatural 
means,)  and  have  given  their  evidence  in  the 
fame  contradictory  manner,  as  it  is  here 
given ;  they  would  have  been  in  danger  of 
having  their  ears  cropt  for  perjury,  and 
would  have  jnftly  deferved  it" — "  hard 
words,  or  hanging,"  it  feems,  if  you  had  not 
been  their  judge.  Now  I  maintain,  that  it 


is  the  brevity  with  which  the  account  of  the 
refurreclion  is  given  by  all  the  evangelifts, 
which  has  occafioned  the  feeming  confufion  ; 
and  that  this  confufion  would  have  been 
cleared  up  at  once,  if  the  witneffes  of  the  re- 
furreftion  had  been  examined  before  any  ju- 
dicature. As  we  cannot  have  this  vivdvoce 
examination  of  all  the  witneffes,  let  us  call 
up  and  queftion  the  evangelifts  as  witneffes 
to  a  fupernatural  alibi. — Did  you  find  the  fe- 
pulchre  of  Jefus  empty?  One  of  us  actually 
faw  it  empty,  and  the  reft  heard  from  eye- 
witneffes,  that  it  was  empty. — Did  you,  or 
any  of  the  followers  of  Jefus,  take  away  the 
dead  body  from  the  fepulchrc?  All  anfwer, 
No. — Did  the  foldiers,  or  the  Jews,  take 
away  the  body  ?  No. — How  are  you  certain 
of  that  ?  Becaufe  we  faw  the  body  when  it 
was  dead,  and  faw  it  afterwards  when  it  was 
alive. — -How  do  you  know  that  what  you 
iaw  was  the  body  of  Jefus  ?  We  had  been 
long  and  intimately  acquainted  with  Jefus, 
and  knew  his  perfon  perfectly . — Were  you 
not  affrighted,  and  miftook  a  fpirit  for  a 
body  ?  No  ;  the  body  had  flefh  and  bones  ; 
we  are  fure  that  it  was  the  very  body  which 
hung  upon  the  crofs,  for  we  faw  the  wound 
in  his  fide,  and  the  print  of  the  nails  in  the 
hands  and  feet. — And  all  this  you  are  ready 
to  fwear  ?  We  are;  and  we  are  ready  to  die 
alfo,  fooner  than  we  will  deny  any  part  of  it. 
—This  is  the  teftimony  which  all  the  evan- 


gelifts  would  give,  in  whatever  court  of  juf- 
tice  they  were  examined;  and  this  I  appre- 
hend, would  fufficiently  eftabliih  the  alibi 
of  the  dead  body  from  the  fepulchre,  by  fu- 
pernatural  means. 

BUT  as  the  refurreftiori  of  Jefus  is  a  point 
which  you  attack  with  all  your  force,  I  will 
examine  minutely  the  principal  of  your  ob- 
jeftions;  I  do  not  think  them  deferving  of 
this  notice,  but  they  (hall  have  it.  The  book 
of  Matthew,  you  lay,  "  ftates  that  when 
Chrift  was  put,  in  the  iepulchre,  the  Jews  ap- 
plied to  Pilate  for  a  watch  or  a  guard  to  be 
placed  over  the  fepuJchrc,  to  prevent  the  bo- 
dy being  ftolen  by  the  difciples." — I  admit 
this  account,,  but  it  is  not  the  whole  of  the 
account;  you  have  omitted  the  reaibn  for  the 
requeft  which  the  chief  priefts  made  to  Pilate 
- — "  Sir,  we  remember  that  that  deceiver 
faid,  while  he  was  yet  alive,  after  three  days 
I  will  rife  again." — It  is  material  to  remark 
this ;  for  at  the  very  time  that  Jefus  predicted 
his  refiirreftion,  he  predicted  alfo  his  cruci- 
fixion, and  all  that  he  ihould  fuffer  from  the 
malice  of  thofe  very  men  who  now  applied 
to  Pilate  for  a  guard. — "  He  {hewed  to  his 
-  difciples,  how  that  he  rnuft  go  unto  Jerula- 
lem,  and  fuiFer  many  things  of  the  elders, 
and  chief  priefts,  and  (bribes,  and  be  killed, 
and  be  railed  again  the  third  day."  (Matt, 
xvi.  21,)  Thefe  men  knew  full  well  that 


the  firfl  part  of  this  prediction  had  been  accu- 
rately fulfilled  through  their  malignity ;  and, 
initead  of  repenting  of  what  they  had  done, 
they  were  fo  infatuated  as  tofuppofe,  that  by  a 
guard  of  foldiers  they  could  prevent  the  com- 
pletion of  the  fecond. — The  other  books,  you 
obferve,  '4  fay  nothing  about  this  application, 
nor  about  the  fealing  of  the  {tone,  nor  the 
guard,  nor  the  watch,  and  according  to  thefe 
accounts  there  werenone/T — This,  Sir,  I  de- 
ny. The  other  books  do  not  fay  that  there 
were  none  of  thefe  things ;  how  often  muft 
I  repeat,  that  omifiions  are  not  contradic- 
tions, nor  filence  concerning  a  fa6t,  a  denial, 
of  it? 

You  go  on — "  The  book  of  Matthew  con- 
tinues its  account  that  at  the  end  of  the  fab- 
bath,  as  it  began  to  dawn,  towards  the  firft 
day  of  the  week,  came  Mary  Magdalene  and 
the  other  Mary  to  fee  the  fepulchre.  Mark 
fays  it  was  fun-rifing,  and  John  fays  it  was 
dark.  Luke  fays  it  was  Mary  Magdalene,  and 
Joanna,  and  Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and 
other  women,  that  came  to  the  fepulchre. 
And  John  fays  that  Mary  Magdalene  came  a- 
lone.  So  well  do  they  all  agree  about  their  firfl 
evidence!  they  all  appear,  however,  to  have 
known  mod  about  Mary  Magdalene;  (lie  was 
a  woman  of  a  large  acquaintance,  and  it  was 
not  an  ill  conjecture  that  (lie  might  be  upon 
the  ftrall." — This  is  a  long  paragraph ;  I  will 


.14* 

anfwer  it  diftin£Hy:— firft,  there  is  no  clifa- 
greement  of  evidence  with  refpect  to  the 
time  when  the  women  went  to  the  fepul- 
chre ;  all  the  evangelifts  agree  as  to  the  day 
on  which  they  went ;  and,  as  to  the  time  of 
the  clay,  it  was  early  in  the  morning's  what 
court  of  juflice  in  the  world  would  ill  a  fide 
this  evidence,  as  infufficlent  to  fubftantiate 
the  faft  of  the  women's  having  gone  to  the 
Jepalchre,  Ix-eaufe  the  witneflTes  differed  as  to 
t  of  twilight  which  lighted  them  on 

•ir  way  ?  Secondly,  there  is  no  difagreement 
of  evidence  with  refpecTt  to  the  perfons,  who 
went  to  the  fepulchre.  John  ftates  that  Ma- 
ry Magdalene  went  to  the  fepulchre;  but  he 
does  not  ftate,  as  you  make  him  ft  ate,  that 
Mary  Magdalene  went  alone;  fhe  might,  for 
any  thing  f  ou  have  proved,  or  can  prove  to 
the  contrary,  have  been  accompanied  by  all 
the  women  mentioned  by  Luke  : — is  it  an 
unufual  thing  to  diftmguifii  by  name  a  prin- 
cipal perfon  going  on  a  vifit,  or  an  einbaffy, 
without  mera ioning  his  fubordinate  attend- 
ants? Thirdly,  in  oppofuion  to  your  infinu- 
ation  that  Mary  Magdalene  was  a  common 
woman,  I  wifh  it  to  be  confidered,  whether 
there  is  any  icriptural  authority  for  that  im- 
putation ;  and  whether  there  be  or  not,  I  niuft 
contend,  that  a  repentant  and  reformed  wo- 
man, ought  not  to  be  efteemed  an  improper 
witnefs  of  a  fact.  The  conjecture  which  you 
adopt  concerning  her,  is  nothing  lefs  than  an 


illiberal,  indecent,  unfounded  calumny,  not 
excufable  in  the  mouth  of  a  libertine,  and  in- 
tolerable in  your's. 

THE  book  of  Matthew,  you  obferve,  goes 
on  to  fay — "  And  behold,  there  was  an  earth- 
quake, for  the  angel  of  the  Lord  defcendecl 
from  heaven,  and  came  and  rolled  back  the 
ftone  from  the  door,  and  Jat  upon  It: — but 
the  other  books  fay  nothing  about  an  earth- 
quake,"— what  then?  does  their filence  prove 
that  there  was  none? — "  nor  about  the  an* 
gel  rollingback  the  ftone  and  fitting  upon  it ;" 
— what  then  ?  does  their  filencfe  prove  that 
the  ftone  was  not  rolled  back  by  an  an- 
gel, and  that  he  did  not  fit  upon  it?— to;  and 
according  to  their  accounts  there  was  no  an- 
gel fitting  there/'  This  conclufion  I  muft 
deny ;  their  accounts  do  not  fay  there  was.no 
angel  fitting  there,  at  the  time  that  Matthew 
fays  he  fat  upon  the  ftone.  They  do  not  de- 
ny the  fact,  they  fimply  omit  the  mention 
of  it;  and  they  all  take  notice  that  the  wo- 
men, when  they  arrived  at  the  fepulchre, 
found  the  ftone  rolled  away  :  hence  it  is 
evident  that  the  ftone  was  rolled  away  be- 
fore the  women  arrived  at  the  fepulchre;  and 
the  other  evangelifts,  giving  an  account  of 
what  happened  to  the  women  when  they 
reached  the  fepulchre,  have  merely  omitted 
giving  an  account  of  a  tranfaction  previous 
to  their  arrival.  Where  is  the  contradic- 


tion?  What  fpace  of  time  intervened  be- 
tween the  rolling  away  the  (tone,  and  the 
arrival  of  the  women  at  the  fepulchre,  is  no 
where  mentioned;  but  it  certainly  was  long 
enough  for  the  angel  to  have  changed  his 
pofition ,  from  fitting  on  theoutfide  he  might 
have  entered  into  the  fepulchre ;  and  ano- 
ther angel  might  have  made  his  appearance, 
or,  from  the  firft,  there  might  have  been 
two,  one  on  the  outfide  rolling  away  the 
ftone,  and  the  other  within.  Luke,  you 
tell  us,  "  fays  there  were  two,  and  they 
were  both  {landing;  and  John  fays  there 
were  two,  and  both  fitting." — It  is  impoffi- 
ble,  I  grant,  even  for  an  angel  to  be  fitting 
and  ftanding  at  the  fame  in  {Ian  t  of  time  ;  but 
Luke  and  John  do  not  fpeak  of  the  fame  in- 
ftant, nor  of  the  feme  appearance — Luke 
fpeaks  of  the  appearance  to  all  the  women  ; 
and  John  of  the  appearance  to  Mary  Magda- 
lene alone,  who  tarried  weeping  at  the  fe- 
pulchre after  Peter  and  John  had  left  it.  But 
I  forbear  making  any  more  minute  remarks 
on  Hill  minuter  objections,  all  of  which  are 
grounded  on  this  miftake — that  the  angels 
were  feeri  at  one  particular  time,  in  one  par- 
ticular place,  and  by  the  fame  individuals. 

As  to  your  inference,  from  Matthew's 
ufing  the  expredion  unto  this  day.,  "  that  the 
book  muft  have  been  manufactured  after  a 
lapfe  of  forne  generations  at  lead,"  it  cannot 


be  admitted  agarift  the  pofitive  teftimony  of 
all  antiquity.  That  the  (lory  about  dealing 
away  the  body  was  a  bungling  ftory,  I  rea- 
dily admit ;  but  the  chief  priefts  are  anfwera- 
bie  for  it;  it  is  not  worthy  either  your  no- 
tice or  mine,  except  as  it  is  a  ftrong  inllance 
to  you,  to  me,  and  to  every  body,  how  far 
prejudice  may  miflead  the  underftanding. 

You  come  to  that  part  of  the  evidence  in 
thofe  books  that  refpefts,  you  fay,  -u  the  pre- 
tended appearances  of  Chrift  after  his  pre- 
tended refurreftion  ;  the  writer  of  the  book 
of  Matthew  relates,  that  the  angel  that  was 
fitting  on  the  (lone  at  the  mouth  of  the  fe- 
pulchre,  faid  to  the  two  Marys,  (chap, 
xxviii.  7.)  "  Behold,  Chrift  is  gone  beforp 
you  into  Galilee,  there  (hall  you  fee  him." 
The  gofpel,  Sir,  was  preached  to  poor  and 
illiterate  men  ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of  priefts 
to  preach  it  to  them  in  all  its  purity  ;  to 
guard  them  againft  the  error  of  miftaken,  or 
the  defigns  of  wicked  men.  You  then,  who 
can  read  your  Bible,  turn  to  this  paflage, 
and  you  will  find  that  the  angel  did  not  fay, 
"  Behold,  Chrift  is  gone  before  you  into  Ga- 
lilee,"— but,  "  Behold,  he  goeth  before  you 
into  Galilee."  I  know  not  what  Bible  you 
made  ufe  of  in  this  quotation,  none  that  I 
have  feen  render  the  original  word  by — he 
is  gone — it  might  be  properly  rendered,  he 
will  go ;  and  it  is  literally  rendered,  he  is 

N 


Agoing.  This  phrafe  docs  not  imply  an  im- 
mediate fetting  out  for  Galilee:  when  a 
man  has  fixed  upon  a  long  journey,  to 
London  or  Bath,  it  is  common  enough  to 
fay,  he  is  going  to  London  or. Bath,  though 
the  time  of  his  going  may  be  at  forne  dif- 
tance.  Even  your  dafhing  Matthew  could 
not  be  guilty  of  fuch  a  blander  as  to  make 
the  angel  fay  he  is  gone  ;  for  he  teils-us  ifri- 
mediately  afterwards,  that,  as  the  women 
were  departing  from  the  fepulchre  to  tell  his 
difciples  what  the  angels  had  laid  to  them, 
Jefus  himfelf  met  them.  .-Now  how  Jefus 
could  te  gone  into  Galilee,  and  yet  meet  the 
women  at  Jerufalem,  I  leave  you  to  explain, 
for  the  blunder  is  not  chargeable  upon  Mat- 
thew. I  excufe  your  introducing  the  ex- 
preffion-r-"  tmen  the  eleven  difciples  went 
away  into  .Galilee/'  for  the  quotation  is 
,rightly.rnade  ;  but  .had  you  turned  to  the 
Greek  Teftament,  you  would  not  have  found 
in  this  place  any  word  antwering  to  then  ; 
the  pa{fage;is  better  translated — and  the  ele- 
ven. Chrift  had  laid  to  his  difciples,  (Matt. 
;xxvi.  32.)  fct  After  I  am  rifen  a^ain,  1  will 
go  before  you  into  Galilee  :"---arid  the  angel 
put  the  woman  in  mind  of  the  very  exprelli- 
on  and  prediftiou — he  is  rijen,  as  he  J'aid: 
and  behold  he  go  till  before  you  Into  Galilee. 
Matthew,  intent  upon  the  appearance  in  Ga- 
lilee, of  which  there  were,  probably,  at  the 
time  he  wrote,  many  living  wltnefles  in 


147" 

Judea,  omits  the  mention1  of  many  appear- 
ances taken  notice  of  by  John,  and  by  this 
o'miffion,  feems  to  connect  the  clay  of  the  re- 
ftirreftion  of  Jefus,  with  that  of  the  depar- 
ture of  the  difciples  for  Galilee.  You  feern 
to  think  this  a  great  difficulty,  and  incapable 
of  folution  ;  for  you  lay—4'  It  is  not  poffible, 
v,hlefs  we  admit'  thele  difciples  "the  right  of 
xvilful  lying,  that  the  writers  of  thefe  books 
could  be  any  of  the  eleven "perfons  called  dii- 
ciples;  for  if,  according  to  Matthew,  the 
eleven  went  into  Galilee  to  meet 'Jefus  in  a 
mountain,  by  his  own  appointment,  on  the 
lame  day  that  he  is  faicl  to  have  rifeir,  Luke 
and  John  muft  havebeen  two  of  that  eleven  ; 
yet.  the  writer  of  Luke  fays  e>:prefsly,  and 
John  implies  as  much,  that  the  meeting  was 
that  fame  day  in  a  houfe  at  Jerufalem  ;  and 
on  the  other  hand,  if,  according  to  Luke  and 
John,  the  eleven  were  affembled  in  a  houfe  at 
Jerufalem,  Matthew  muft  havebeen  one  of 
that  eleven  ;  yet  Matthew  fays,  the  meeting 
•was  in  aihountain  inGaliJee,  and  consequently 
the  evidence  given  in  thole  books  deilroy  each 
other;"  When  I  was  a  young  man  in  the 
univerfity,  I  was  pretty  much  accuftomed  to 
drawing  of  confequences;  but  my  Alma  Ma- 
ter did  not  differ  me  to  draw  confequences  af- 
ter your  manner;  fhe  taught  me- — that  a 
falftr  pofition  muft  end  in  an  abfurd  conclufi- 
on,  1  have  (hewn  your  polition — that  the 
eleven  went  into  Galilee  on  the  clay  of  the 


refurrcction — to  be  falfe,  and  hence  yottr 
confequence — that  the  evidence  given  in 
thefe  two  books  deftroys  each  other — is  not 
to  be  admitted.  You  ought,  moreover,  to 
have  considered,  that  the  feaft  of  unleaven- 
ed bread,  which  immediately  followed  the 
day  on  which  the  paflbver  Tvas  eaten,  lailed 
feven  days;  and  that  Uriel  obiervers  of  the 
]aw  did  not  think  themfelves.  at  liberty  to 
leave  jerufalein,  till  that  feaft  was  ended  ; 
gncl  this  is  a  collateral  proof  that  the  diiciples 
did  not  go  to  Galilee  on  the  day  of  the  re- 
furreftion. 

You  certainly  have  read  the  New  Tefta- 
rcent,  but  not,  I  think,  with  great  attention, 
or  yon  would  have  known  who  the  apoflles 
were.  In  this  place  you  reckon  Luke  as  one 
of  the  eleven,  and  in  other  places  you  {peak 
of  him  as  an  eye-witnefs  of  the  things  he  re- 
lates ;  you  ought  to  have  known  that  Luke 
was  no  apoftle  ;  and  he  tells  you  himfelf,  in 
the  preface  to  his  gofpel,  that  he  wrote  from 
the  teftimony  of  others.  If  this  miftake  pro- 
ceeds from  your  ignorance,  you  are  not  a  fit 
perfon  to  write  comments  on  the  Bible;  if 
fromdefign,  (which  I  am  unwilling  to  fuf- 
pect,)  you  are  ftill  lefs  fit  ;  in  either  cafe  it 
may  iuggefl  to  your  readers  the  propriety 
of  fufpeftingthe  truth  and  accuracy  of  your 
alTertions,  however  daring  and  intemperate. 
• — lt  Of  the  numerous  priefts  or  parfons  of  the 


prefent  day,  billions  and  all,  the  flim  total  of 
whofe  learning,"  according  to  you,  "  is  a  b 
ab,  and  hie,  hsec,  hoc,  there  is  not  one 
arnongft  them,"  yon  fay,  "  who  can  write 
poetrylike  Homer,  or  fcience  like  Euclid." 
— If  I  fhould  admit  this,  (though  there  are  ma- 
ny of  them,  I  doubt  not,  who  underftand 
thefe  authors  better  than  you  do,)  yet  I  cannot 
admit  that  there  is  one  amongft  them,  bifhops 
and  all,  fo  ignorant  as  to  rank  Luke  the  evan- 
gelifl  among  the  apoftles  of  Chrift.  .  I  will 
not  prefs  this  point ;  any  man  may  fall  into  a 
miftake,  and  the  confcioufnefsof  this  fallibili- 
ty fhould  create  in  all  men  a  little  modefty, 
a  little  diffidence,  a  little  caution,  before 
they  do  prefnme  to  call  the  rnoft  illuflrious 
characters  of  antiquity  liars,  fools,  and  knaves, 

You  want  t6  know  why  JeTus  did  not  fiie\v 
himfelf  to  all  the  people  after  his  refurreftion. 
— This  is  one  of  Spinoza's  objeftions  ;•  and  it 
may  found  well  enough  in  the  month  of  a  Jevrt 
wifhing  to  excufe  the  infidelity  of  his  coun- 
trymen ;  but  it  is  not  judicioufly  adopted  by 
deifts  of  other  nations.  God  gives  us  the 
means  of  health,  but  he  does  not  force  us  to 
the  ufe  of  them  ;  he  gives  us  the  powers  of 
the  mind,  but  he  does  not  compel  us  to  the 
cultivation  of  them  :  he  gave  the  Jews  op- 
portunities of  feeing  the  miracles  of  Jefus, 
but  he  did  not  oblige  them  to  believe  them, 
N  * 


150 

They  xvho  perfevered  in  their  incredulity 
after  the  refurre&ion  of  Lazarus,  would  have 
perfevercd  alfo  after  the  refurredtionof  Jefus, 
Lazarus  had  been  buried  four  days,  Jefus  but 
three  ;  the  body  of  Lazarus  had  begun  to  un- 
dergo corruption,  the  body  of  Jefus  faW  no 
corruption;  why  fliould  you  expeft,  that  they 
would  have  believed  in  Jefus  on  his  own  re- 
furreftion,  when  they  had  not  believed  in 
him  on  the  refurre&ion  of  Lazarus  ?  When 
the  pharilees  were  told  of  the  refurre£Hon 
of  Lazarus,  they,  together  with  the  chief 
priefts,  gathered  a  council  and  faid — "What 
do  we  ?  for  this  man  docth  many  miracles. 
If  we  let  him  thus  alone,  all  men  will  believe 
on  him  : — -then  from  that  day  forth  they 
took  council  together  to  put  him  to  death." 
The  great  men  at  Jerufalem,  you  fee,  admit- 
ted that  Jefus  had  raifed  Lazarus  from  the 
dead  ;  yet  the  belief  of  that  miracle  did  not 
generate  conviftion  that  Jefus  wastheChrift, 
it  only  exafperated  their  malice,  and  accele- 
rated their  purpofe  of  cleftroyirg  him.  Had 
Jefus  fhewn  himfelf  after  his  fefurre&ion,  the 
chief  p;  Sells  would  probably  have  gathered 
another  council,  have  opened  rt  with,  What 
do  we?  and  ended  it  with  a  determination  to 
put  him  to  death.  As  to  us,  the  evidence 
of  the  refurreftion  of  Jefus,  which  we  have 
in  the  New  Teftament,  is  far  mere  convin- 
cing, than  if  it  had  been  related  that  he  fhtw- 
ed  himfelf  to  every  man  in  Jerusalem  ;  for 


then  we  fliould  have  had  afufpicion,  that  the 
whole  ftory  had  been  fabricated  by  the  jews. 

You  think  Paul  an  improper  witnefs  of  the 
refurre&ion  ;  I  think  him  one  of  the  fitteft 
that  could  have  been  chofen  ;  and  for  this 
reafon — his  teftimony  is  the  teftimony  of  a 
former  enemy.  He  had,  in  his  own  mira- 
culous converfion,  fufficient  ground  for  chan- 
ging his  opinion  as  to  a  matter  of  fa&;  for  be- 
lieving that  to  have  been  a  faft,  which  he  had 
formerly,  through  extreme  prejudice,  confi- 
dered  as  a  fable.  For  the  truth  of  the  refur* 
re£tion  of  Jefus  he  appeals  to  above  two 
hundred  and  fifty  living  witneiFfS  ;  and  be- 
fore whom  does  he  make  this  appeal  ? — Be- 
fore his  enemies,  who  were  able  and  willing 
to  Waft  his  character,  if  he  had  advanced  an 
untruth. — You  know,  undoubtedly,  that  Paul 
had  refided  at  Corinth  near  two  years  ;  that, 
during  a  part  of  that  time,  he  had  tcftifled  to 
the  Jews,  that  Jefus  was  the  Chrift;  that, 
finding  the  bulk  of  that  nation  obftinate  in 
their  unbelief,  he  had  turned  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  had  converted  many  to  the  faith  in  Chrift; 
that  he  left  Corinth,  and  went  to  preach  the 
gofpel  in  other  parts  ;  that,  about  three  years 
after  he  had  quitted  Corinth,  he  wrote  a  let- 
ter to  the  converts  which  he  had  made  in 
that  place,  and  who  after  his  departure  had 
been  iplit  into  different  factions,  and  had  a- 
dopted different  tcachersin  oppofitioii  to  Paul, 


132 

From  this  account  we  may  be  certain,  that 
Paul's  letter,  and  every  circumftance  in  it, 
would  be  minutely  examined.  The  city  of 
Corinth  was  full  of  Jews  ;  thefe  men  were, 
in  general,  Paul's  bitter  enemies  ;  yet  in  the 
face  of  them  all,  he  afferts,  •"  that  Jefus  Chrift 
was  buried  ;  that  he  role  again  the  third  clay; 
that  he  was  fcen  of  Cephas,  then  of  the 
twelve  ;  that  he  was  afterwards  feen  of  a- 
bove  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  of  whom 
the  greater  part  were  then  alive.  An  ap- 
peal to  above  2 go living  wit neffes,. is  a  pret- 
ty ftrong  proof  of  a  fa£t ;  but  it  becomes  ir- 
refiftible,  when  that  appeal  is  fubmitted  to 
the  judgment  of 'enemies.  St.  Paul,  you 
mull  allow,  was  a  man  of  ability  ;  but  he 
would  have  been  an  idiot,  had  he  put  it  in 
the  power  of  his  enemies  to  prove,  from  his 
own  letter,  that  he  was  a  lying  rafcal.  They 
neither  proved,  nor  attempted  to  prove,  any 
fuch  thing  •;  and,  therefore,  we  may  fafely 
conclude,  that  this  teftimony  of  Paul  to  the 
refurreftion  of  Jefus,  was  true  :  and  it  is  a  tef- 
timony,  in  my  opinion,  of  the  greateft 
weight. 

Yotf  come,  you  fay,  to  the  lafl  fcene,  the 
afcenfion;  upon  which,  in  your  opinion,  "  the 
reality  of  the  future  miffion  of  the  difciples 
was  to  reft  for  proof.'' — I  do  not  agree  with 
you  in  this.  The  reality  of  the  future  miffion 
of  the  apoftles  might  have  been  proved, 


'531 

though  Jefas  Chrift  had  not  vifibly  afcendecf 
into  heaven.  Miracles  are  the  proper  proofs 
of  a  divine  million  ;  and  when  Jefus  gave  ther 
apoftles  a  commiffion  to  preach  thegofpel^ 
he  commanded  them  to  flay  at  Jerufalem, 
till  they  "  were  endued  with  power  from  on 
high."'  Matthew  has  omitted  the  mention 
of  the  afcenfion  ;  and  J<;~;  .  ,  you  fay,  has  not 
fald  a  fyllabie  about  it.  I  think  othcrwife.- 
John  has  not  given  an  exprefs  account  of  the 
aicenfion,  but  has  certainly -faid  fomething 
about  it:  for  he  informs  us,  that  Jefus  laid 
to  Mary,  "  Touch  me  not;  for  I  am  not  yet 
afcended  to  my  father;  but  go  to  my  bre- 
thren, and  fay  unto  them,  I  afcend  Unto  my 
father  and  your  father,  and  to  my  God  and 
your  God."  This  is  furely  faying  fome- 
thing about  the  afcenfion  ;  and  if  the  fa£l  of 
the  aicenfion  be  not  related  by  John  or  Mat- 
thew, it  may  reafonably  be  fuppofed,  that 
the  omiffion  was  made,  on  account  of  the  no- 
toriety of  the  faft.  That  the  fact  was  ge- 
nerally known,  may  be  juftly  collected  from 
the  reference  which  Peter  makes  to  it  in  the 
hearing  of  all  the  Jews,  a  very  few  days  after 
it  had  happened. — "  This  Jefus  hath  God 
raifed  up,  whereof  we  all  are  witneffes." 
Therefore  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  ex- 
alted.— Paul  bears  teftiinony  alfo  to  the  af- 
cenfion, when  he  fays,  that  Jefus  was  receiv- 
ed up  into  glory.  As  to  the  difference  you 
contend  for,  between  the  account  of  the  af- 


fenfion,  as  given  by  Mark  and  Luke,  it  does-' 
not  exift;  except   in  this,   that  Mark  omit& 
the  particulars  of  Jefus  going  with  his  apoi- 
tles    to  Bethany,    and  bleffing    them   therer 
.which  are  mentioned  by  Luke.     But  omiffi-- 
ons,  I  muft  often  put  you  in  mind,  .are  not^ 
contradictions. 

You  have  now,  you  fay,  "  gone  through' 
the  examination  of  the  four  books  afcribed  to 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John-;  and  when 
it  is  confidered  that  the  whole  fpace  of  time, 
from  the  crucifixion  to  what  is  called  the  af- 
ceniion,  is  but  a  few  days,  apparently  rot 
more  than  three  or  four,  and  that  all  the  cir- 
cumftances  are  reported  to  have  happened 
near  the  fame  fpot,  Jerufalem,  it  is,  I  believe, 
impoflible  to  find,  in  any  ftory  upon  record, 
fb  many,  and  fuch  glaring  abfurdities,  con- 
tradidlions,  and  faliehoods,  as  are  in  thofe 
books." — What  am  I  to  fay  to  this?  Am  I 
to  fay  that,  in  writing  this  paragraph,  you 
have  forfeited  your  character  as  an  honefl 
man?  Or,  admitting  your  honeily,  am  I  to 
fay  that  you  are  groisly  ignorant  of  the  fub- 
jeft  ?  Let  the  reader  judge. — John  fays,  that 
Jefus  appeared  to  his  difciples  at  Jerufalem 
on  the  day  of  his  refurre£tion,  and  that  Tho- 
mas was  not  then  with  them. — The  lame 
John  fays,  that  after  eight  days  he  appeared 
to  them  again,  when  Thomas  was  with  them. 
Sir,,  how  apparently  three  or  four 


155 

Hays  can  be  confident  with  really  eight  days , 
1  leave  you  to  make  out.  Bat  this  is  not  the 
whole  of  John's  teftimony,  either  with  re- 
fpect  to  place  or  time — for  he  lays — After 
thefe  things  (afterthe  two  appearances  to  the 
dlfciples  at  Jerusalem  on  the  firft  and  on  the 
eighth  day  after  the  reiurrection)  Jefus  fhew- 
ed  hhnfelf  again  to  his  clifciples  at  the  feia 
of  'Tiberias.  The  fea  of  Tiberias,  I  pre- 
fume  you  know,  was  in  Galilee:  and  Galilee, 
you  may  know,  was  iixty  or  leventy  miles 
ironi  Jerusalem,  it  muft  have  taken  the  dif- 
ciples  Tome  time,  after  the  eighth  day,  to  tra- 
vel from  Jerufalem  into  Galilee.  What,  in 
your  own  infill  ting  language  to  the  pr lefts, 
what  have  you- to  anfwer  as  to  i[\e  fame  jpot 
Jcrujalem,  as  to  your  apparently  three  or 
four  days?-*- But  this  is  not  all.  Luke,  in  the 
.beginning  of  the  A£ls,  refers  to  his  go! pel, 
and  fays—  "  Chrifl  iliewed  himfelf  alive  after 
his  paflion,  by  many  infallible  proofs,  being 
/een  of  the  apoflles  iforty  days,  and  .{peaking 
..of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of 
God:"- — hifi.ead  of  four,  you  perceive  there 
were  forty  days  between  the  crucifixion  and 
.the  aicenlion.  I  i^ed  not,  I.truft,  after  this, 
.trouble  myfelf  about  the  fiilfehoods  and  con- 
traditions  .which  you  .impute  to  the  evaiige- 
-.liils,  your  readers  cannot  but  be  upon  their 
guard,  as  to  the  credit;  due  to  your  aflcrtious, 
-however  bold  and  improper.  You  willfuf- 
fer  me  to  remark,  that  the  evangelifls  were 


156 

plain  men;  who,  convinced  of  the  truth  of 
their;  narration,  and  confcious  of  their  own 
integrity,  have  related  what  they  knew,  with 
admirable  fimplicity.  They  fee'm  to  have 
{aid  to  the  Jews  of  their  time,  and  to  fay  to 
the  Jews  an J  unbelievers  of  all  times — We 
have  told  you  the  truth;  and  if  you  will  not 
believe  us,  we  have  nothing  more  to  lay*- — 
Had  they  been  importers,  they  would  have 
written  with  more  caution  and  art,  have  ob- 
viated every  cavil,  and  avoided  every  appear- 
ance of  contradiction.  This  they  have  not 
done  ;  and  this  I  confider  as  a  proof  of  their 
honefty  and  veracity. 

JOHN  the  baptift  had  given  his  teflimony 
to  the  truth  of  our  Saviour's  miffion  in  the 
molt  unequivocal  terms;  he  afterwards  fent 
two  of  his  difcipies  to  Jefus,  to  afk  him  whe- 
ther he  was  really  the  expected  Mdliah  or 
not.  Matthew  relates  both  thefe  circumftan- 
ces;  had  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Matthew 
been  an  impoftor,  would  he  have  invalidated 
John's  teflimony,  by  bringing  forward  his 
real  or  apparent  doubt?  Irnpoflible !  -Mat- 
thew, having  proved  the  refurreftion  of  Je- 
fus, tells  us,  that  the  eleven  difciples  went 
away  into  Galilee  into  a  mountain  where 
jefus  had  appointed  them,  and  tfc  when  they 
law  him,  they  worffiippcd  him  :  but  feme 
doubted." — Would  an  impoftor,  in  the  very 
laft  place  where  he  mentions  the  refurrection, 


and  in  the  conclulicn  of  his  book,  have  fug- 
gelled  fuch  a  cavil  to  unbelievers,  as  to  fay, 
— -fonie doubted?  Impoffible?  The  evangelifl 
has  left  us  to  collect  the  reafon  why  fome 
doubted: — the  difciples  faw  Jcfus,  at  a  dif- 
tance,  on  the  mountain;  and  fome  of  them 
fell  down  and  worfhipped  him  ;  whilft  others 
doubted  whether  the  perfon  they  faw  was 
really  Jefus ;  their  doubt,  however,  could 
not  have  lafled  long,  for  in  the  very  next 
verfe  we  are  told,  that  Jefus  came  and  fpake 
unto  them. 

GREAT  and  laudable  pains  have  been  taken 
by  many  learned  men,  to  harmonize  the  feve- 
ral  accounts  given  us  by  the  evangelifts  of 
the  refurreftion.  It  does  not  feem  to  me  to 
be  a  matter  of  any  great  confequence  to  chrif- 
tianity,  whether  the  accounts  can,  in  every 
minute  particular,  be  harmonised  or  not  ; 
fince  there  is  no  fuch  difcordance  in  them,  as 
to  render  the  faft  of  the  refurre&ion  doubt- 
ful to  any  impartial  mind.  If  any  man,  in  a 
court  of  juftice,  fhould  give  pofitive  evidence 
of  a  faft;  and  three  others  (hould  afterwards 
be  examined,  and  all  of  them  fliould  confirm 
the  evidence  of  the  firft  as  to  the  fa£l,  but 
{hould  apparently  differ  from  him  and  from 
each  other,  by  being  more  or  leis  particular 
in  their  accounts  of  the  circumftances  attend- 
ing the  faft ;  ought  we  to  doubt  of  the  fa£, 
becaufe  we  could  not  harmonize  the  evidence 
O 


158 

reflecting  the  circumftanccs  relating  to  it  ? 
The  bmiflion  of  any  one  circumftance  (fuch 
as  that  of  Mary  Magdalene  having  gone  twice 
to  the  fepulchre;  or  that  of  the  angel  having, 
after  he  had  rolled  away  the  ftone  from  the 
fepulchre,  entered  into  the  fepulehre)  may 
render  an  harmony  impofliblc,  without  ha- 
ving recourfe  to  fuppofition  to  fupply  the  de- 
fed:.  You  deifts  laugh  at  all  fuch  attempts, 
and  call  them  prieftcraftv  I  think  it  better 
then,  in  arguing  with  you,  to  admit  that 
there  may  be  (not  granting,  however,  that 
there  is)  an  irreconcileable  difference  between 
the  evangelifts  in  fome  of  their  accounts 
refpe&ing  the  life  of  Jefus,  or  his  refurrec- 
tion. — Be  it  fo,  what  then?  Does  this  differ- 
ence, admitting  it  to  be  real,  deftroy  the 
credibility  of  the  gofpel  hiftory  in  any  of  its 
effential  points?  Certainly,  in  my  opinion, 
not.  As  I  look  upon  this  to  be  a  general  an- 
fwer  to  moft  of  your  deiftical  objeilions,  I 
profefs  my  fmcerity,  in  faying,  that  I  con- 
lider  it  as  a  true  and  fufficient  anfwer;  and  I 
leave  it  to  your  confideration.  I  have,  pur- 
pofcly,  in  the  whole  of  this  difcu (lion,  been 
filent  as  to  the  infpiration  of  the  evangelifts; 
well  knowing  that  you  would  have  rejected, 
with  fcorn,  any  thing  I  could  have  laid  on 
that  point :  but,  in  difputing  with  a  deift,  I 
do  mod  folernnly  contend,  that  the  Chriftian 
religion  is  true,  and  worthy  of  all  accepta- 
tion, whether  the  evangelifts  were  infpired 
or  not. 


UNBELIEVERS,  in  general,  wi(h  to  conceal 
their  fentiments ;  they  have  a  decent  refpect 
for  public  opinion  ;  are  cautious  of  affronting 
the  religion  of  their  country  ;  fearful  of  un- 
dermining the  foundations  of  civil  ibciety.— 
Some  few  have  been  more  Baring,  but  leis  ju- 
dicious; and  have,  without  difguife,  profeffed 
their  unbelief  Bat  you  are  the  firft  who 
everfwore  that  he  was  an  infidel,  concluding 
your  deiliical  creed  with — -So  help  me  God! 
I  pray  that  God  may  help  you ;  that  he  may, 
through  the  influence  cf  his  Holy  Spirit, 
bring  you  to  a  right  mind  ;  convert  you  to 
the  religion  of  his  Son,  whom,  out  of  his 
abundant  love  to  mankind,  he  fent  into  the 
world,  that  all  who  believed  in  him  fhould 
.not  periili,  but  have  everlalling  life. 

You  fwear,  that  you  think  the  chriftian 
religion  is  not  true.  I  give  full  credit  to 
your  oath  ;  it  is  an  oath  in  confirmation — of 
what? — of  an  opinion. — It  proves  the  fin- 
cerity  of  your  declaration  of  y  our  opinion  ; 
but  the  opinion,  notwithstanding  the  oath, 
may  be  either  true  or  falie.  Permit  me  to 
produce  to  you  an  oath  not  confirming  an 
opinion,  but  a  fa£t ;  it  is  the  oath  of  St.  Paul, 
when  he  fwears  to  the  Galatians,  that  in  what 
he  told  them  of  his  miraculous  converficn, 
he  did  not  tell  a  lie  :  "  Now  the  things  which 
I  v/rite  unto  you,  behold,  before  God,  I  lie 
not:" — do  but  give  that  credit  to  Paul  which 


i6o 

I  give  to  you,  do  but  confider  the  difference 
between  an  opinion  and  afadt,  and  I  lhall  not 
defpair  of  your  becoming  a  chriflian. 

DEISM,  you  fay,  confifts  in  a  belief  of  one 
God,  and  an  imitation  of  his  moral  character, 
or  the  practice  of  what  is  called  virtue;  and 
in  this  (as  far  as  religion  is  concerned)  you 
reft  all  your  hopes.-~-There  is  nothing  in  de- 
ifm  but  what  is  in  chriftianity,  but  there  is 
much  in  chriltianity  which  is  not  in  deifm. 
The  chriftmn  has  no  doubt  concerning  a  fu- 
ture ftate;  every  deift,  from  Plato  to  Tho- 
mas Paine,  is  on  this  fubjeft  overwhelmed 
with  doubts  infuperable  by  human  reafon. 
The  chriftian  has  no  miigivings  as  to  the 
pardon  of  penitent  finners,  through  the  in- 
terceffion  of  a  mediator  ;  the  deift  is  barafled 
with  apprehenfion,  left  the  moral  juftice  of 
God  fliould  demand,  with  inexorable  rigour, 
punifhment  for  tranfgreffion.  The  chriftian 
has  no  doubt  concerning  the  lawfulnefs  and 
the  efficacy  of  prayer ;  the  deift  is  difturbed  on 
this  point  by  abftraft  confiderations  concern- 
ing the  goodnefs  of  God,  which  wants  not  to 
be  intreated  :  concerning  his  forefight,  which 
has  no  need  of  our  information  ;  concerning 
his  immutability,  which  cannot  be  changed 
through  our  fupplication.  The  chriftian  ad- 
mits the  providence  of  God  and  the  liberty 
of  human  actions  ;  the  deift  is  involved  in 
great  dffiiculties,  when  he  undertakes  the 


proof  of  either.  The  chriftian  has  afHirance 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  will  help  his  infirmi- 
ties ;  the  deift  does  not  deny  the  poflibility 
that  God  may  have  accefs  to  the  human 
mind,  but  he  has  no  ground  to  believe  the  faft 
of  his  either  enlightening  the  underflanding, 
influencing  the  will,  or  purifying  the  heart. 


O    2 


LETTER    IX. 


HOSE/'  you  fay,  "  who  are  not 
•much  acquainted  with  ecclefiaftical  hiftory, 
may  fuppofe  that  the  book  called  the  New 
Teftament  has  exifted  ever  fince  the  time  of 
Jefus  Chrift,  but  the  fad  is  hiftorically  other- 
wife ;  there  was  no  fuch  book  as  the  New 
Teflament  till  more  than  three  hundred 
years  after  the  time  that  Chrift  is  faid  to 
have  lived." — This  paragraph  is  calcula- 
ted to  miflead  common  readers ;  it  is  necef- 
fary  to  unfold  its  meaning.  The  book,  called 
the  New  Teftarnent,  confifts  of  twenty-le* 
ven different  parts;  concerningfeven  of  thefe, 
viz,,  the  cpiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  of  James, 
the  feeoad  of  Peter,  the  fccond  of  John,  the 
third  of  John,  that  of  Jude,  and  the  Revela- 
tion^ there  were  at  firii  fome  doubts;  and  the 
qudHon,  whether  they  fhould  be  received 
into  the  canoe.,,  might  be  decided,  as  all 
^ricftloES  concerning  opinions:  muft  be.^  by 


vote.  With  refpeft  to  the  other  twenty 
parts,  thofe  who  are  moft  acquainted  with 
ecclefiaftical  hiftory  will  tell  you,  asDu  Piu 
does  after  Eufcbius,  that  they  were  owned 
as  canonical,  at  all  times,  and  by  all  ChrilH- 
ans. — "Whether  the  council  of  Laodicea  was 
held  before  or  after  that  of  Nice,  is  not  a  fet- 
tled point ;  all  the  books  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment,  except  the  Revelation,  are  enumera- 
ted as  canonical  in  the  Conftitutions  of  that 
council  ;  but  it  is  a  great  miftake  to  fuppoie, 
that  the  greateft  part  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Teftament  were  not  in  gen  ral  ufe 
amongft  Chriftians,  long  before  the  council 
of  Laodicea  was  held.  This  is  not  merely 
my  opinion  on  the  fubjeft  ;  it  is  the  opinion 
of  one  much  better  acquainted  with  ecclefi- 
aftical hiftory  than  I  am,  and,  probably, 
than  3  CNU  are, — Mcffleim.  "  The  opinions," 
fays  this  author,  "  or  rather  theconje&ures, 
of  the  learned,  concerning  the  time  when 
the  books  of  the  New  Teftament  were  col- 
lected into  one  volume,  as  alfo  about  the  au- 
thors of  that  collection,  are  extremely  dif- 
ferent. This  important  queftion  is  attend- 
ed with  great  and  almoft  fcfuperable  difficul- 
ties to  us  in  thefe  latter  times.*  It  is  how- 
ever fufficient  for  us  to  know,  that,  before 
the  middle  of  the  fecond  century,  the  great- 
eft  part  of  the  books  of  the  New  Teftament 
were  read  in  every  Chriftlan  fociety  through- 
out the  world,  and  received  as  a  divine  rule 


offaith  and  manners.  Hence  it  appears,  that 
thefe  facred  writings  were  carefully  fepara- 
ted  from  feveral  human  compofitions  upon 
the  fame  fubjeft,  either  by  fome  of  the  apof- 
tles'themfelves,  who  lived  fo  long,  or  by  their 
difciples  and  fucceflbrs  who  were  fpread  a- 
broad  through  all  nations.  We  are  well  af- 
fured.  that  the  four  gojpels  were  collected 
during  the  life  of  St.  John,  and  that  the  three 
firft  received  the  approbation  of  this  divine 
apoftle.  And  why  may  we  not  fuppofe  that 
the  other  books  of  tlie  New  Teftament  were 
gathered  together  at  the  fame  time  ? -\VhaJ;.  .„. 
renders  this  highly  probable  is,  that  the  mod 
urgent  neceffity  required  its  being  done. 
For,  not  long  after  Chrift's  afcenfion  into 
heaven,  feveral  hiftories  of  his  life  and  doc- 
trines, full  of  pious  frauds,  ancffabulbus  won- 
ders, were  compofed  by  pe'rfons,  v/hofe  in- 
tentions, perhaps,  were  not  bad,  but  whofe 
writings  difcoyered  thegreateft  fuperftition 
and  ignorance.  Nor  was  this  all  :  produc- 
tions appeared,  which  were  impofcd  on  the 
woild  by  fraudulent  men  as  the  writings  of 
tlie  holy  apoflles.  ThefF^apocrypfial  and 
fpurious  writings  muft  have  produced  a  fad 
confufion,  an  $  rendered  both  thehiftory  and 
the  dodlrine  of  Chrift  uncertain,  had  not  the 
rules  of  the  church  ufed  all  poitlble  care  and 
diligence  in  feparating  the  books  that  .were 
truly  apoftolical  and  divine^  from  all  that 


1 65 

fpurious  trafh,  and  conveying  them  down  to 
pofterity  in  one  volume." 

DID  you  ever  read  the  apology  for  the 
Chriflians,  which  Juftin  Marty rprefented  to 
the  emperor  Antoninus  Pius,  to  the  fenate, 
and  people  of  Rome  ?  I  {hould  fooner  expert 
a  falfity  in  a  petition,  which  any  body  of 
perfecuted  men,  imploring  juftice,  fhould 
prefent  to  the  king  and  parliament  of  Great 
Britain,  than  this  apology,  yet  in  this  apology 
which  was  preferred  not  fifty  years  after  the 
death  of  St.  John,  not  only  parts  of  all  the  four 
gojpels  arc  quoted,  but  it  is  exprefslyfaid,  that 
on  the  day  called  Sunday,  a  portion  of  them 
was  read  in  the  public  afiemblicsof  the  Chrif- 
tians.  I  forbear  purfuing  this  matter  farther ; 
elfe  it  might  eafily  be  fhewn,  that  probably 
the  gofpels,  and  certainly  fome  of  St.  Paul's 
epiitles,  were  known  to  Clement,  Ignatius 
and  Poly  carp  contemporaries  with  the  apof- 
tles.  Thefe  men  could  not  quote  or  refer 
to  books  which  did  not  exifl :  and  therefore 
though  you  could  make  it  out  that  the  book 
called  the  New  Teftament  did  not  former- 
ly exjft  under  that  title,  till  350  years  after 
Chrift  ;  yet  I  hold  it  to  be  a  certain  fad,  that 
all  the  books,  of  which  it  is  compofed,  were 
written,  and  mpft  of  them  received  by  all 
Chriftians,  within  a  few  years  after  his  death. 

You  raife  a  difficulty  relative  to  the  time 


i66 

which  intervened  between  the  death  and 
refurreftion  of  Jefus,  who  had  faicl,  that  the 
Son  of  man  fliail  be  three  clays  and  three  nights 
in  the  heart  of  the  earth.  Are  yon  ignorant 
then  that  the  Jewsufed  the  phrafe  threedayS 
and  thiee  nights  to  denote  what  we  uiider- 
ftand  by  thiee  days  ? — It  is  faid  in  Genefis,- 
chap.  vii.  12.  "  The  rain  was  upon  the  earth 
forty  days  and  forty  nights ;"  and  this  is  equi- 
valent to  the  oipreffion,  (ver.  17.)  "  And 
the  flood  was  forty  days  upon  the  earth." 
Inftcad  then  of  laying  three  days  and  three 
nights,  let  us  limply  fay — three  days — -and 
you  will  not  objeft  to  Chrift's  being  three 
days — Friday,  Saturday,  and  Sunday,  in  the 
hear^of  the  earth.  I  do  not  fay  that  he  was 
in  the  grave  the  \vhole  of  either  Friday  or 
Sunday;  but  an  hundred  inftances  might  be 
produced,  from  writers  of  all  nations,  in 
which  apart  of  a  day  is  fpoken  of  as  the 
whole. — Thus  much  for  the  defence  of  the 
hiftorical  part  of  the  New  Teftament. 

You  have  introduced  an  account  of  Fauf- 
tus,  as  denying  the  genuineneis  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Teftament.  Will  you  permit 
that  great  fcholar  in  facred  literature,  Ml- 
chaeliS)  to  tell  you  fomething  about  this 
Fauftus  ? — "  He  was  ignorant,  as  were  mod 
of  the  African  writers,  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, and  acquainted  with  the  New  Tefta- 
ment merely  through  the  channel  of  the  La- 


tin  tranflation  ;  he  was  not  only  devoid  of  a 
fufficient  fund  of  learning,  but  illiterate  in 
the  higheft  degree.  An  argument  which  he 
brings  againft  the  genuinenefs  of  the  gofpel 
affords  fufficient  ground  for  this  aflertion  ; 
for  he  contends,  that  the  gofpel  of  St.  Mat- 
thew could  not  have  been  written  by  St. 
Matthew  himfelf,  becaufe  he  is  always  men- 
tioned in  the  third  perfon."  You  know  who 
has  argued  like  Fauftus,  but  I  did  not  think 
myfelf  authorized  on  that  account  to  call  you 
illiterate  in  the  higheft  degree  ;  but  Mi- 
chaelis  makes  a  ftill  more  fevere  conclufion 
concerning  Fauftus  ;  and  he  extends  his 
obfervation  to  every  man  who  argued  like 
him — **  A  man  capable  of  fuch  an  argu- 
ment inuft  have  been  ignorant  not  only  of 
the  Greek  writers,  the  knowledge  of  which 
could  not  have  been  expeded  from  Fauf- 
tus, but  even  of  the  Commentaries  of  Cos- 
Tar.  And  were  it  thought  improbable  that 
ib  heavy  a  charge  could  be  laid  with  jufticc 
on  thefide  of  his  knowledge,  it  would  fall  with 
double  weight  on  the  fide  of  his  honefty,  and 
induce  us  to  fuppofe,,  that,  preferring  the  arts 
of  fophiftry  to  the  plainnefs  of  truth,  he 
maintained  opinions  which  he  believed  to  be 
falfe."  (MaruYs  Tranfl.)  Never  more,  I 
think,  {hall  we  hear  of  Mofes  not  being  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch,  on  account  of  its 
being  written  in  the  third  perfon. 


NOT  being  able  to  produce  any  argument  to 
render  queftionable,  either  the  genuinenefs  or 
theauthenticityof  St.  Paul'sEpiftles,  you  tell 
us,  that  "  it  is  a  matter  of  no  great  impor- 
tance by  whom  they  were  written,  fince 
the  writer,  whoever  he  was,  attempts  to 
prove  his  do£trine  by  argument :  he  does  not 
pretend  to  have  been  witnefs  to  any  of  the 
fcenes  told  of  the  refurrecftion  and  afcenfi- 
on,  and  he  declares  that  he  had  not  believed 
them."  That  Paul  had  fo  far  refitted  the 
evidence  which  the  apoftles  had  given  of  the 
refurreftion  and  afcenfion  of  Jefus,  as  to  be  a 
perfecutor  of  the  difciples  of  Chrift,  is  cer- 
tain ;  but  I  do  not  remember  the  place  where 
he  declares  that  he  had  not  believed  them. 
The  high  prieft  and  thefenateof  the  children 
of  Ifrael  did  not  deny  the  reality  of  the  mira- 
cles, which  had  been  wrought  by  Peter  and  the 
apoftles;  theydidnotcontradi&theirteftimo- 
ny  concerning  therefurre&ion  and  the  afcen- 
fion ;  but  whether  they  believed  it  or  not, 
they  were  fired  with  indignation,  and  took 
council  to  put  the  apoftles  to  death  :  and  this 
was  alfo  the  temper  of  Paul:  whether  he 
believed  or  did  not  believe  the  fiery  of  the 
relurreftion,  he  was  exceedingly  mad  againft 
the  faints.  The  writer  of  Paul's  Epiftles 
does  not  attempt  to  prove  his  doctrine  by 
argument;  he  in  many  places  tells  us,  that 
his  do&rine  was  not  taught  him  by  man,  or 
any  invention  of  his  own,  which  required 


169 

the  ingenuity  of  argument  to  prove  it : — c 
certify  you,  brethren,  that  the  gofpel,  which 
was  preached  of  me,  is  not  after  man.  For 
I  neither  received  it  of  man,  neither  was  I 
taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  ©f  Jefus 
Chrift."  Paul  does  not  pretend  to  have  been 
a  witnefs  of  theftory  of  the  refurreftion,  but 
he  does  much  more;  he  aflbrts,  that  he  was 
himfelf  a  w  itnefs  of  the  refurrettion.  After 
enumerating  many  appearances  of  Jefus  to 
his  difciples,  Paul  fays  of  himfelf,  "  Laft  of 
all,  he  was  feen  of  me  alfo,  as  of  one  born  out 
of  du~  time."  Whether  you  will  admit 
Paul  to  have  been  a  true  witnefs  or  not,  you 
cannot  deny  that  he  pretends  to  have  been  a 
witneis  of  the  refurre£Uon. 

THE  ftory  of  his  being  ftruck  to  the 
ground,  as  he  was  journeying  to  Damafcus, 
las  nothing  in  it,  you  fay,  miraculous  or  ex- 
:raordinary  :  you  reprelent  him  as  ftruck  by 
lightning. — It  is  fomewhat  extraordinary  for 
a  man,  who  is  ftruck  by  lightning,  to  have, 
at  the  very  time,  fall  pofleffion  of  his  un- 
derftanding;  to  hear  a  voice  iffuingfrom  the 
lightning,  fpeaking  to  him  in  the  Hebrew 
tongue,  calling  him  by  his  name,  and  enter- 
ing into  converfation  with  him.  His  com- 
panions, you  (ay,  appear  not  to  have  fuffcr- 
eel  in  the  fame  manner  : — -the  greater  the 
Bonder.  If  it  was  a  common  ftorm  of  thun- 

r  and  lightning  which  ftruck  Paul  and  all 
P 


his  companions   to  the  ground,  it  is   forne- 
•what  extraordinary  that  he  alone  fhould  be 
hurt  ;   and   that   notwithflanding   his   being 
ftrack  blind  by  lightning,  he  fliouldinbther 
refpedts  be  t'o  little  hart,  as  to  be  immediate- 
ly able  to  walk    into  the  city   of  Damafcus. 
So  difficult  is  it  to  oppofe  truth  by  an  hypo- 
thefis  ! — In  the  character  of  Paul  you  di(co- 
vera  great  deal  of  violence  and  fanaticism  ; 
and  fuch   men,  you  obferve,  are  never  good 
moral  evidences  of  any  doctrine  they  preach. 
—•Read,  Sir,  Lord  LyttU  ton's  oblervations  on 
the  converfion  and  apoftlcftiSp  of  St.  Paul  ; 
and  I  thinkyou  will  be  convinced  of  the  con- 
trary.     That  elegant  writer  thus  expreffes 
his  opinion  on  this  liibject — "  Befides  all  the 
proofs  of  the  Chriftian  religion,  which   may 
be  drawn    from    the  prophecies  of  the  Old  j 
Teftament,from  the  necefTary  connexion  it 
has  with  the  whole  fyftern  of  the  Jewifh  re- 
ligion, from  the  miracles  of  Chrift,  and  fro  n  I 
the  evidence  given  of  his  refurrt-ftion  by  all 
the  other  apodies,    I    think   the    converfion 
and  apoftleihip  of  St.  Paul  alone,  duly  coiifi4j 
dered,  is,  of  itielf,  a  detnonftration  fufficientj 
to  prove  Chriilianity   to  be  a  divine  revela-l 
tion/'      I  hope  this  opinion  will   have  fojnel 
•weight  with  you  ;  it  is  not  the  opimon  oi?a 
lying  Bible-prophet,  of  a  ilupid   eyange:iit|| 
or  of  an  a  b  ab  pried,. — but  of  a  learned    Jay* 
man,  whofe  illuflrious  rank  received  ipJendof] 
from  his  talents. 


**', 

You  are  difpleafed  with  St.  Paul  "  for  let- 
ting out  to  prove  the  refurre£Uon  of  thcjame 
body." — You  know,  I  prefume,  that  the  re- 
furreftion  of  the  fame  body  is  not,  by  all,  ad- 
mitted to  be  a  fcriptural  doftrine,— "  In  the 
New  Tellament  (wherein,  I  think,  are  con- 
tained all  the  articles  of  the  Chriftian  faith) 
I  find  our  Saviour  and  the  apo files  to  preach 
the  refurre&lon  of  the  dead  and  the  rejurrec- 
tion  from  the  dead,  in  many  places  ;  but  I  do 
not  remember  any  place  where  the  refurrec- 
tion  of  the  fame  body  isfo  much  as  mention- 
ed." This  obfervation  of  Mr.  Locke  I  fo 
far  adopt,  as  to  deny  that  you  can  produce 
any  place  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  where- 
in he  lets  out  to  prove  the  refurre&ion  of 
the  fame  body.  I  do  not  queftion  the  pof- 
fibil'ty  of  the  rcfnrreftion  of  the  fame  body \ 
and  I  am  not  ignorant  of  the  manner  in  which 
fome  learned  men  have  explained  it  ;  (fome- 
what  after  the  way  of  your  vegetative  fpeck 
in  the  kernel  of  a  peach  ;)  but  as  you  are  dif- 
crediting  St.  Paul's  clodrine,  you  ought  to 
fhew  that  what  you  attempt  to  difcredit  Is 
thedo&rine  of  the  apoftle.  As  a  matter  of 
choice  you  had  rather  have  a  better  body> — 
you  will  have  a  better  body — "  your  natural 
body  will  be  railed  a  fpiritual  body,  "  your 
corruptible  will  put  on  incorruption.  You 
arefo  much  out  of  humour  with  your  pre- 
fent  body,  that  you  inform  us,  every  animal 
in  thecreation  excels  us  in  fomething.  Now 


172 

had  always  thought,  that  the  fingle  cir- 
.imflnnce  of  our  having  hands,  and  their 
.aving  none,  gave  us  an  infinite  fuperiority 
ot  only  over  infers,  fifties,  fnails,  and  fpi- 
ders,  (which  you  reprefent  as  excelling  us  in 
loco-motive  powers,)  but  over  all  the  ani- 
mals of  the  creation  ;  and  enabled  vis,  in  the 
language  of  Cicero,  defcribing  the  manifold 
utility  of  our  hands,  to  make  as  it  were  a 
new  nature  of  things.  As  to  what  you  fay 
about  the  confcioufnefs  of  exiftence  being  the 
only  conceivable  idea  of  a  future  life — it 
proves  nothing,  either  for  or  againft  the  re- 
(urreftion  of  a  body,  or  of  the  fame  body  ; 
it  does  not  inform  us,  whether  to  any  or  to 
what  fubftance,  material  or  immaterial,  this 
confcioufnefs  is  annexed.  I  leave  it,  how- 
ever, to  others,  who  do  not  admit  personal 
identity  to  coniift:  in  confcioufnefs,  to  difputr 
with  you  on  this  point,  and  willingly  fub~ 
fcribe  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Locke,"  that 
nothing  but  confcioufnefs  can  unite  reinoto 
exiftences  into  the  fame  perfon." 

FROM  a  caterpillar's  paffinginto  a  torpid 
ftate  refembling  death,  and  afterwards  ap- 
pearing a  fplcndicl  butterfly,  and  from  the 
(fuppofecl)  confcionfhefs  of  exiftence  which 
the  animal  had  in  thefe  different  ftates,  you 
afk,  Why  mnft  I  believe,  that  the  refurrec- 
tion  of  the  fame  body  is  neceflary  to  con- 
tinue in  me  the  confcioufnefs  of  exiftence. 


hereafter  ?- — I  do  not  diflike  analogicaPrea- 
foiling,  when  applied  to  proper  objefts,  and 
kept  within  due  bounds  : — but  where  is  it 
faid  in  fcripture,  that  the  refurreftion  of  the 
fame  body  is  necefTary  to  continue  in  you  the 
confcioufnefs  of  exiftence  ?  Thofc  who  admit 
a  con.fcious  flate  of  the  foul  between  death 
and  the  refurre£tion,  will  contend,  that  the 
foul  is  the  fubftance  in  which  confcioufnefs  is 
continued  without  inteiruption  : — thofe 
who  deny  the  intermediate  (late  of  the  foul 
as  a  ftate  of  confcioufnefs,  will  contend,  that 
confcioufnefs  is  not  deftroycd  by  death,  but 
fufpended  by  it,  as  it  is  fbfpended  during  a 
found  fleep,  and  that  it  may  as  eafily  be  ref- 
tored  after  death,  as  after  deep, during  which 
the  faculties  of  the  foul  are  not  extindl  but 
dormant.— Thofe  who  think  that  the  foul  Is 
nothing  diilinft  from  the  compages  of  the 
body,  not  a  fubftance  but  a  mere  quality, 
will  maintain,  that  the  confcionfnels  apper- 
taining to  every  individual  perfon  is  not  lofl 
when  the  body  is  destroyed  ;  that  it  is  known 
to  God  ;  arid  may,  at  the  general  refurreftic  , 
be  annexed  to  any  iyftem  of  matter  he  may 
think  fit,  or  to  that  particular  compages  to 
which  it  belonged  in  this  life. 

IN  reading  your  book  1  have  been  fre- 
quently (hocked  at  the  virulence  of  your  xeal 
at  the  indecorum  of  your  abufe  in  applying 
vulgar  and  offenfive  epithets  to  men  who 

P   2 


have  teen  held,  and  who  will  long,  I  trnft, 
continue  to  be  holden,  in  high  eftimation. 
I  know?  that  the  fear  of  calumny  is  fcldom 
wholly  effaced,  it  remains  long  after  the 
wound  is  healed  ;  and  your  abufe  of  holy  men 
and  holy  things  will  be  remembered,  when 
your  arguments  againll  them  are  refuted  and 
forgotten.  Moi'es  you  term  an  arrogant 
cWcomb,  a  chief  afTaliin  ;  Aaron,  Jofhua, 
Samuel,  David,  monfters  and  irrpoftors  ;  the 
Jewifh  kings  a  parcel  of  ralcals  ;  Jeremiah 
and  the  reft  of  the  prophets,  liars  ;  and  Paul 
a  fool  ;  for  having  written  one  of  the  fubli- 
meft  compositions,  and  on  the  mo  ft  impor- 
tant fubjeit  that  ever  occupied  the  mind  of 
man- — the  leilbn  in  our  burial  fervice: — this 
leilbn  yon  call  a  doubtful  jargon,  as  deflitute 
of  meaning  as  the  tolling  of  the  bell  at  the  fu- 
neral. Men  of  low  condition !  prefled  down, 
as  you  often  are,  by  calamities  generally  inci- 
dent to  human  nature,  and  groaning  under 
the  burdens  of  miiery  peculiar  to  your  condi- 
tion, what  thought  you  when  you  heard  this 
leffbn  read  at  the  funeral  of  your  child,  your 
parent,  or  your  friend?  Was  it  mere  jargon 
to  you, -as  deftitute  of  meaning  as  the  tolling 
of  a  bell? — No. — You  underllood  from  it, 
that  you  would  not  all  fleep,  but  that  you 
v/ould  .all  be  changed  in  a  moment  at  the  lafi 
trump ;  you  underftood  from  it,  that  this 
corruptible  muft"  put  on  incormption  ;  that 
this  mortal  muft  put  en  immortality,  and 


175 

that  death  would  be  fwallowed  up  rn  victo- 
ry ;  you  underftood  from  it,  that  if  (not  with  - 
Handing  profane  attempts  to  fubvert  your 
faith)  ye  continue  ftedfaft,  unmoveable,  al- 
ways abounding  in  the  work  of  the  Lord, 
your  labour  will  not  be  in  vain. 

You  feem  fond  of  difplaying  your  /kill  in 
fcience  and  philofophy ;  you  fpeak  more  than 
once  of  Euclid;  and,  in  cenfuring  St.  Paul* 
you  intimate  to  us,  that  when  the  apoftlefays 
— one  ftar  differethfrom  another  ftar  in  glo- 
ry— he  ought  to  have  laid — in  diftance. — All 
men  fee  that  one  ftar  difFereth  from  another 
ftar  in  glory  or  brightnefs;  but  few  men 
know  that  their  difference  in  brightnefs  arifes 
from  their  difference  in  diftance  ;  and  I  beg 
leave  to  fay,  that  even  you,  philofopher  as  you 
are,  do  not  know  it.  You  make  an  affurnption 
which  you  cannot  prove — that  the  ftars  are 
equal  in  magnitude,  and  placed  at  different 
diftances  from  the  earth  ; — but  you  cannot 
prove  that  they  are  not  different  in  magnitude, 
and  placed  at  equal  diftances,  though  none  of 
them  may  be  fo  near  to  the  earth,  as  to  have 
any  feniible  annual  parallax.  I  beg  pardon 
of  my  readers  for  touching  upon  this  iub- 
je£l  ;  but  it  really  moves  one's  indigna- 
tion, to  ice  a  {mattering  in  philofophy  ur- 
ged as  an  argument  againft  the  veracity  of 
an  apoftle. — ifc  Little  learning  is  a  dangerous 


PAUL,  you  fay,  affefts  to  be  a  naturalift; 
and  to  prove  (you  might  more  properly  have 
fair!  illiiilrate)  hisfyitem  of  refur rt& ion  from 
the  principles  of  vegetation — •"  Thou  fool," 
fays  he,  '•*  that  which  thou  fowcft  is  not 
quickened  except  it  die  :" — to  which  one 
rnigh  rep-Iv,  in  his  own  language,  and  fay — 
Aw  Thou  fool,  Paul,  that  which  thou  fow- 
eft  is  not  quickened  except  it  die  not."  It 
niav  be  ieen,  I  think,  from  this  paflage,  who. 
its  to  be  a  naturaiiit,  to  be  acquainted 
with  the  microfcopicaidifcoveries  of  modern 
times ;  which  were  probably  neither  known 
to  Paul,  nor  to  the  Corinthians  ;  and  which, 
had  they  been  known  to  them  both,  would 
have  b-*en  of  little  ufe  in  the  illuftration  of 
the  fubjeft  of  the  refurrection.  Paul  laid — 
that  which  thou  ibw.il:  is  not  quickened  ex- 
cept it  die: — every  hufbandman  in  Corinth, 
though  unable  perhaps  to  define  the  term 
death,  would  underftand  the  apoftle's  phrafe 
in  a  popular  fenfe,  and  agree  with  him  that  a 
grain  of  wheat  muft  become  rotten  in  the 
ground  before  it  could  iprout  ;  and  that,  as 
God  raifecl  from  a  rotten  grain  of  wheat, 
the  roots,  the  ftern,  the  leaves,  the  ear  of  a 
new  plant,  he  might  alfo  caufe  a  new  body 
to  fpring  up  from  the  rotten  car  cafe  in  the 
grave. — Do&or  Clarke  obierves,  "  In  like 
manner  as  in  every  grain  of  corn  there  is  con- 
tained a  minute  infenflble  feminal  principle, 
which  is  itielf  the  entire  future  biade  and  ear, 


and  in  due  feafon,  when  all  the  reft  of  the 
grain  is  corrupted,  evolves  and  unfolds  itfelf 
viflbly  to  the  eye;  fo  our  prefent  moral  and 
corruptible  body  may  be  but  the  exuvi^^  as  it 
were,  of  fome  hidden,  and  at  prefent  infenfi- 
ble  principle,  (poilibly  the  prefent  feat  of  the 
foul,)  which  at  the  refurredion  (hall  difco- 
ver  itfelf  in  its  proper  form."  I  do  not  agree 
with  this  great  man,  (for  fiich  I  efteem  him) 
in  this  philofophical  conjecture  ;  bat  the  quo- 
tation may  ferve  to  Ihew  you,  that  the  gem 
does  not  evolve  and  unfold  itfelf  viflbly  to  the 
eye  till  all  the  reft  of  the  grain  Is  corrupted; 
that  is,  in  the  language  and  meaning  df  St, 
Paul,  till  it  dies. — Though  the  authority  of 
.  Jefus  may  have  as  little  weight  with  you  as 
that  of  Paul,  yet  it  may  not  be  improper  to 
quote  to  you  our  Saviour's  expreffion,  when 
he  foretcls  the  numerous  difciples  which  his 
death  would  produce — fc*  Except  a  corn  of 
wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth 
alone:  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much 
fruit." — You  perceive  from  this,  that  the 
Jews  thought  the  death  of  the  grain  was  ne- 
ceflary  to  its  reproduction : — he* nee  every  one 
may  fee  what  little  reafon  you  had  to  objeCt 
to  the  qpoftle's  popular  illuitration  of  the 
poffibility  of  a  refurreCHon.  Had  he  known 
as  much  as  any  naturaliil  in  Europe  does,  of 
the  progrefs  of  an  animal  from  one  {late  to 
another,  as  from  a  worm  to  a  butterfly, 
(which  you  think  applies  to  the  cafe,)  I  am 


of  opinion  be  would  not  have  ufcd  that  il.luf- 
tration  in  preference  to  what  he  has  uied, 
which  is  obvious  and  (atisfadtory. 

WHETHER  the  fourteen epift les  afcribed  to 
Paul  were  written  by  him  or  not,  is,  in  your 
judgment,  a  matter  of  indifference. — So  far 
from  being  a  matter  of  indifference,  I  confiuer 
the  genuinentfs  of  St.  Paul's  epiftles  to  be  a 
matter  of  the  greateft  importance  ;  for  if  the 
epiftles,  • -.(bribed  to  Paul,  were  written  by 
him,  (and  there  is  unquestionable  proof  that 
they  were,)  it  will  be  difficult  for  you,  or 
for  any  man,  upon  fair  principles  of  found 
reafoning,  to  deny  that  theChriftian  religi- 
on is  true.  The  argument  is  a  (hort  one, 
and  obvious  to  every  capacity.  It  (lands 
thus  :— St.  Paul  wrote  (everal  letters  to  thofe 
whom,  in  different  countries,  he  had  con- 
verted to  the  Chriftian  faith  ;  in  thefe  let- 
ters he  affirms  two  things  ; — firft,  that  he 
had  wrought  miracles  in  their  prefence  ;—~ 
fecondly,  that  many  of  themfelves  had  re- 
ceived the  gift  of  tongues,  and  other  mira- 
culous gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.— The  per- 
fons  to  whom  thefe  letters  were  addrefled 
muft,  on  reading  them,  have  certainly 
known,  whether  Paul  affirmed  what  was 
true,  or  told  a  plain  lie;  they  muft  have 
known,  whether  they  had  ieen  him  work 
miracles,  they  muft  have  been  conicious, 
whether  they  themfelves  did  or  did  not  pof- 


fefs  any  miraculous  gifts. — Now  can  you,  or 
can  any  man,  believe,  for  a  moment,  that 
Paul  (a  man  certainly  of  great  abilities) 
would  have  written  pr.blic  letters,  full  of  lies, 
and  which  could  not  fait  of  being  difcovertd 
to  be  lies,  asfoonashisletters  were  read  ?  Paul 
could  not  be  guilty  of  falfehood  in  th/'fe  two 
points,  or  in  either  of  them;  and  if  either 
of  them  be  true,  the  Chriftian  religion  is 
true.  References  to  thefe  two  points  are  fre- 
quent in  St.  Paul's  epiftles:  I  will  mention 
only  a  few.  In  his  Epiftle  to  the  Galatums, 
belays,  (chap.  iii.  2,  5.)  "  This  only  would 
I  learn  of  you,  receive  ye  the  fpirit  (:>-ifts 
of  the  fpirit)  by  the  works  of  the  law  *— He 
miniftreth  to  you  the  I]  irk,  and  worketh 
miracles  among  you." — To  the  Theflaloni- 
ans  he  lays,  (  i.  Theff.  ch.  i.  5.)  "  Oar  gof- 
pel  came  not  unto  you  in  word  only,  but 
alfo  in  p^w.3r,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghoft." — To 
the  Corinthians  he  thus  expreiles  himlllf: 
(r  Cor.  ii.  4.)  "  M>  preaching  was  not  with 
enticing  w,ords  of  man's  wifdom,  but  in  the 
dcmoultration  of  the  fpirit  and  of  power;" 
— and  he  adds  the  reafon  for  his  working 
miracles — "  That  your  faith  (hould  not 
ftand  in  the  wifclom  of  men,  but  in  the  pow- 
er of  God." — With  what  alacrity  would 
the  faction  at  Corinth,  which  oppofed  the 
apoftle,  have  laid  hold  of  this  and  many 
fiinilar  declarations  in  the  letter,  had  they 
been  able  to  have  detected  any  falfehood  in 


i8o 

them?  There  is  no  need  to  multiply  words 
on  fo  clear  a  point — the  genuinenefs  of 
Paul's  Epiftles  prove  their  authenticity,  in- 
dependently of  every  other  proof;  for  it  is 
abfurd  in  the  extreme  to  fuppofe  him,  under 
circumftances  of  obvious  detection,  capable 
of  advancing  what  was  not  true;  and  if 
Paul'sEpiftles  beboth  genuine  andauthentic, 
the  Chriftian  religion  is  true. — Think  of 
this  argument. 

You  clofe  your  oblervations  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner  :  "  Should  the  Bible,  (mean- 
ing, as  I  have  before  remarked,  the  Oid  Tef- 
tame$t)  and  Teftament  hereafter  fall,  it  is 
not  I  that  have  been  the  occafion."  You 
look,  I  think,  upon  your  produftion  with  a 
parent's  partial  eye,  when  you  ipeak  of  it  in 
fuch  a  ft  vie  of  felf-ccmplaccncy.  rl  be  Bible, 
Sir,  has  withftood  the  learning  of  Porphyry, 
and  the  power  of  Julian  ^  to  lay  nothing  of 
the  manichean  Fauftus—'\t  has  refilled  the 
genius  of  Bolingbrcke^  and  the  wit  of  Pol - 
iaire,  to  (ay  nothing  of  a  numerous  herd  of 
inferior  ailkibnts;  and  it  will  not  fall  by  your 
force.  You  have  barbed  anew  the  blunted 
arrows  of  former  adveriaries ;  you  have  fea- 
thered them  with  blafphemy  and  ridicule ; 
clipped  them  in  yov.r  deadiieft  poiion ; 
aioicd  them  with  your  utinoft  ikill;  (hot 
the iii  ag.'iLil  tlie  fhicld  of  faith  with  your 
iitxnoii  vigour;  but,  like  the  feeble  jave- 


lin  of  aged  Priam,  they  will  fcarccly  reach 
the  mark,  will  fall  to  the  ground  without  a 
flroke. 


LETTER     X. 


T 


H  E  remaining  part  of  your  work 
can  hardly  be  made  the  fubjeft  of  animad- 
verfion.  It  principally  confifts  of  unfup- 
ported  afTertions,  abufive  appellations,  illi- 
beral farcafms,y?r//e.f  of  words,  profane  bab- 
blings, and  oppositions  of  fcience  faljely  Jo 
called.  I  am  hurt  at  being,  in  mere  juftice 
to  thefubjeft,  under  the  neceffity  of  ufing 
fuch  harfli  language  ;  and  am  fincerely  forry 
that,  from  what  caufe  I  know  not,  your  mind 
has  received  a  wrong  bias  in  every  point  ref- 
pe&ing  revealed  religion.  You  are  capable 
of  better  things;  for  there  is  aphilofophical 
fublimity  in  fome  of  your  ideas,  when  you 
fpeak  of  the  Supreme  Being,  as  the  Creator 
O 


182 

of  the  univerfe.  That  you  may  not  accufc 
me  of  difrdpeft,  in  pafiing  over  any  part  of 
your  work  without  bcftowing  proper  atten- 
tion upon  it,  I  will  wait  upon  you  through 
what  you  call — your  conclulion. 

You  refer  your  reader  to  the  former  part 
of  the  Age  of  P^eafon  ;  in  which  you  have 
fpoken  of  what  you  efteem  three  frauds — 
myftery,  miracle,  and  prophecy. — I  have 
not  at  hand  the  book  to  Which  you  refer,  and 
know  not  what  you  have  faid  on  thefe  fub- 
jects  ;  they  are  fubje&s  of  great  importance, 
and  we,  probably  fhould  differ,  eflentially 
in  our  opinion  concerning  them  ;  but,  I  con- 
fefs,  I  am  not  lorry  to  be  excufed  from  exa- 
mining what  you  have  faid  on  thefe  points. 
The  ipecimen  of  your  reafoning,  wrhich  is 
now  before  me,  has  taken  from  me  every  in- 
clination to  trouble  cither  my  reader,  or 
myfelf,  with  any  oblervations  on  your  for- 
mer book. 

You  admit  the  pofllbility  of  God's  reveal- 
ing his  will  to  man  ;  yet  "  the  things  fo  re- 
vealed/'' "  is  revelation  to  the  perfon  only 
to  whom  it  is  made;  his  account  of  it  to 
another  is  not  revelation.^— -This  is  true;  his 
account  is  fimpleteftimony.  Your^d,  there  is 
no  fci  poilible  criterion  to  judge  of  the  truth  jof 
what  heihys."  This  I  poiiviveiy  deny  '  and  con- 
lend  { that  a  real  miracle,  performed  in  st  tciiat  i- 


on  of  a  revealed  truth,  is  a  certain  criterionby 
which  we  may  judge  of  the  truth  of  that  at- 
teitation.  I  am  perfectly  aware  of  the  ob- 
jeftions  which  may  be  made  to  thispolition; 
I  have  examined  them  with  care  ;  I  acknow- 
ledge them  to  be  of  weight  ;  but  I  do  not 
fpeak  tinadvifedly ,  or  as  wifliing  to  dictate  to 
other  men,  when  I  fay,  that  I  am  perfuaded 
the  pofition  is  true.  So  thought  Mofes, 
when,  in  the  matter  of  Korah,  he  faid  to  the 
Ifraelites — i;  If  thefe  men  die  the  common, 
death  of  all  men,  then  the  Lord  hath  not 
fent  me." — So  thought  Elijah,  when  he  faid 
— 4i  Lord  God  of  Abraham,  Ifaac,  and  of  If- 
rael,  let  it  be  known  this  day,  that  thou  art 
God  in  Ifrael,  and  that  I  am  thy  fervant ;" — - 
and  the  people  before  whorn  he  fpuke,  were 
of  the  fame  opinion  ;  for,  when  the  fire  of  the 
Lord  fell,  and  coniurmd  the  burnt -facrifice, 
they  faid—"  The  Lord  he  is  the  God."— So 
thought  our  Saviour,  when  he  faid — fcfc  The 
works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name,  they 
bear  witnefs  of  me;" — incl,  i;  if  i  do  not  the 
works  of  my  Father  believe  me  not. 

WHAT  reafon  have  we  to  believe  Jefus, 
fpeaking  in  the  gofpel,  and  to^cJifb'elieVe  Ma- 
hoinet  fpeaking  in  the  Koran  ?  Both  of  them 
lay  claim  toa divine  commiiliou  :  and  yet  we 
receive  the  words  of  the  one  as  a  revelation 
from  God,  and  we  rejeft  the  words  of  the 
other  as  an  impofture  of  man.  The  reafon 


h  evident ;  Jefus  eftablifhed  his  pretenfions, 
not  by  alJedging  any  fecret  coinmanication 
with  the  Deity,  but  by  working  numerous 
and  indubitable  miracles  in  the  prefence  of 
thoufands,  and  which  the  mod  bitter  and 
watchful  of  his  enemies  rould  not  difallow  ; 
but  Mahomet  wrought  n©  miracles  at  all. — - 
Nor  is  a  miracle  the  only  criterion  by  which 
we  may  judge  of  the  truth  of  a  revelation. 
Ifaferies  of  prophets  fhould,  through  a  courfe 
of  many  centuries,  predict  the  appearance 
of  a  certain  perfon,  whom  God  would,  at  a 
particular  time,  fend  into  the  world  for  a 
particular  end  ;  and  at  length  a  pcrfon  fhould 
appear,  in  whom  rJl  the  predictions  were  mi- 
nutely accompli/lied;  fuch  a  completion  of 
prophecy  would  be  a  criterion  of  the  truth 
of  that  revelation,  which  that  perfon  fhould 
deliver  to  mankind.  Or  if  a  perfon  fhould 
now  fay,  (as  many  falfe  prophets  have  laid, 
and  are  daily  fay  ing,)  that  he  had  a  commif- 
fion  to  declare  the  will  of  God  ;  and,  as  a 
proof  of  his  veracity,  fhould  predicl — that, 
after  his  death,  he  would  rife  from  the  dead 
on  the  third  day  ; — the  completion  of  fuch 
a  prophecy  would,  I  prefume,  be  a  fufficient 
criterion  of  the  truth  of  what  this  man 
might  have  fa  id  concerning  the  will  of  God. 
Now  I  tell  you,  (fays  Jefus  to  his  dilciples, 
concerning  Judas,  who  was  to  betray  him,) 
before  it  come  that  when  it  is  come  to  pais 
ye  may  believe  that  I  am  he.  In  various 


1 85 

parts  of  the  gofpels  our  Saviour,  with  the 
utmoft  propriety,  claims  to  be  received  as  the 
meflenger  of  God,  not  only  from  the  miracles 
which  he  wrought,  but  from  the  prophecies 
which  were  fulfilled  in  his  perfon,  and  from, 
the  predictions  which  he  himfelf  delivered. 
Hence,  inftead  of  there  being  no  criterion  by 
which  we  may  judge  of  the  truth  of  thechrif- 
tian  revelation,  there  are  clearly  three.  It 
is  an  eafy  matter  to  ufe  an  indecorous  flip- 
pancy of  language  in  {peaking  of  the  chrif- 
tian  religion,  and  with  a  fupercilious  negli- 
gence to  clafs  Chrift  and  his  apoftles  among 
the  impoflors  who  have  figured  in  the  world ; 
but  it  is  not,  I  think,  an  eafy  matter  for  any 
man,  of  good  fenfe  and  found  erudition,  to 
make  an  impartial  examination  into  any  one 
of  the  three  grounds  of  Chriftianity  which  I 
have  here  mentioned,  and  to  reject  it. 

WHAT  is  it,  you  a(k,  the  Bible  teaches  ? 
— The  prophet  Micah  (hall  anfwer  you  :  it 
teaches  us — tfc  to  do  juftly,  to  love  mercy,, 
and  to  walk  humbly  with  our  God  ;  " — juf- 
tice,  mercy,  and  piety,  inftead  of  what  you 
contend  for — rapine,  cruelty,  and  murder. 
What  is  it,  you  demand,  the  Teftament 
teaches  us?  You  anfwer  your  quefti-on — to 
believe  that  the  Almighty  committed  de- 
bauchery with  a  woman. — Abfurd  and  impi- 
ous aflertion  !  No,  Sir,  no;  this  profane 
dodtrinerthis  miferable  miff,  this  bh'f 


1 86 

perverfion  of  fcripture,  is  your  dc&rine,  not 
that  of  the  New  Teftament.  I  will  tell  you 
the  leflon  which  it  teaches  to  infidels  as  well 
as  to  believers ;  it  is  a  leffon  which  philofa- 
phy  nevertanght,  which  wit  cannot  ridicule, 
J30i  fophiftry  difprove  ;  the  leffon  is  this — 
"The  dead  fhall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  they  that  hear  ftiall  live: — all  that 
are  in  their  graves  (hall  come  forth  ;  they 
that  have  done  good,  unto  the  refuriefiion 
of  life  ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto 
the  refurre&ion  of  damnation. 

THE  moral  precepts  of  the  gofpel  are  fa 
well  fitted  to  promote  the  happinefs  of  man- 
kind in  this  world,  and  to  prepare  human  na- 
ture for  the  future  enjoyment  of  that  blefled- 
ncfs,  of  which,  in  our  prefent  ftate,  we  can 
form  no  conception,  that  I  had  no  expefta- 
tion  they  would  have  met  with  your  difap- 
probation.  You  fay,  however. — "  As  to  the 
Icraps  of  morality  that  are  irregularly  and 
thinly  fcattered  in  thofe  books,  they  make  no 
part  of  the  pretended  thing,  revealed  religi- 
on."--" Whati'beverye  would  that  n:,en  (hoi t Id 
do  to  you,  do  ye  even  fo  to  them." — Is  this 
a  fcrap  of  morality  ?•  Is  it  not  rather  the  con- 
centred dfence  of  all  ethics,  the  vigorous 
root  from  which  every  branch  of  moral  duty 
towards  each  other  may  be  derived  ?  Duties, 
you  know,  Ere  diftinguiflicd  by  nioralifts  into 
•  duties  of  perfect  and  iuipcrfe^obligation:  docs. 


the  Bible  teach  you  nothing,  when  it  inrtrufts 
you,  that  thisdiftinftion  is  done  away?  when 
it  bids  you  "  put  on  bowels  cf  mercies,  kind- 
nefs,  humble  neis  of  mind,  nieeknefs,  long- 
fufferiijg,  forbearing  one  another,  and  forgi- 
ving one  another,  if  any  man  have  a  quarrel 
againft  any."  Thefe,  and  precepts  fuch  as 
theie,  you  will  in  vain  look  for  in  the  cod^s 
of  Frederick  or  Juflinlan  ;  you  cannot  find 
them  in  our  ftatute  books  ;  they  were  not 
taught,  nor  are  they  taught,  in  the  fchools  of 
heathen  philofophy  ;  or,  if  fbme  one  or  two  of 
them  fhould  chance  to  be  glanced  at  by  Pia- 
to,  a  Seneca,  or  a  Cicero,  they  are  not  bound 
upon  the  confciences  of  mankind  by  any  fanc- 
tion.  It  is  in  the  gofpel,  and  in  the  gotpel 
alone,  that  we  learn  their  importance  ;  afts 
cf  benevolence  and  brotherly  love  may  be  to 
an^  unbeliever  voluntary  afts,  to  a  chriftian 
they  are  indifpenfible  duties. — Is  a  new  com- 
mandment no  part  of  revealed  religion?  "  A 
new  commandment  I  give  unto  you,  That 
ye  love  one  another  :"  the  law  of  chriftian 
benevolence  is  enjoined  us  by  Chrifh  himfelf 
in  the  mod  folemn  manner,  as  the  dittin--  , 
guifhing  badge  of  our  being  his,  diiciples. 

Two  precepts,  you  particulariz,e  as  incon- 
fiftent  with  the  dignity  and  the  nature  of 
man — that  of  not  relenting  injuries,  and  that 
of  loving  enemies. — Who  but  yourfelf  ever 
interpreted  literally  the  proverbial  phraie — » 


If  a  man  finite  thee  on  the  right  cheek,  turn 
to  him  the  other  alfo  ?" — Did  Jefus  himfelf 
turn  the  other  cheek  when  the  officer  of  the 
high  prieft  fmote  him?  It  is  evident,  that  a 
patient  acquiefcence  under  flight  perfonal  in- 
juries is  here  enjoined  ;  and  that  a  pronenefs 
to  revenge,  which  inftigates  men  to  iavage 
acls  of  brutality,  for  every  trifling  offence,  is 
forbidden.  As  to  loving  enemies,  it  is  explain- 
ed, in  another  place  to  mean,  the  doing  them 
all  the  good  in  our  power;  %fc  if  thine  enemy 
hunger,  feed  him;  if  he  thirft,  give  him 
drink;"  and  what  think  you  is  more  likely  to 
prefer ve  peace,  and  to  promote  kind  affe£Uons 
amongft  men,  than  the  returninggood for  evil  ?• 
Chriftianity  does  not  order  us  to  love  in  pro- 
portion to  the  injury — tb  it  does  not  offer  a 
premium  for  a  crime," — it  orders  us  to  let 
our  benevolence  extend  alike  to  all,  that  we 
may  emulate  the  benignity  of  God  himfelf, 
who  maketh  '4  his  fun  to  rife  on  the  evil  and 
on  the  good.'* 

IN  the  Jaw  of  Mofes,  retaliation  for  deli- 
berate  injuries  had  been  ordained — an  eye  for 
an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth. — Anflotle,  in  his 
treatife  of  morals,  fays,  that  fome  thought 
retaliation  of  perfonal  wrongs  an  equitable 
proceeding;  Rhadamanthus  is  faid  to  have 
given  it  his  fanction;  the  decemviral  laws  al- 
low it ;  the  common  law  of  England  did  not 
forbid  it;  and  it  is  faid  to  be  ftill  the  law  of 


forue  countries,  even  in  chriftendom  :  but  the 
mild  fpirit  of  chriflianity  abfolutely  prohi- 
bits, not  only  the  retaliation  of  injuries,  but 
the  indulgence  of  every  refentful  propenfity. 

IT  has  been,"  you  affirm,  "  the  fcheme  of 
the  Chriftian  church  to  hold  man  in  igno- 
rance of  the  Creator,  as  it  is  of  govern- 
ment to  hold  him  in  ignorance  of  his  rights." 
— I  appeal  to  the  plain  fenfe  of  any  honeft 
man  to  judge  whether  this  reprefcntaticn  be 
true  in  either  particular.  When  he  attends 
the  fervice  of  the  church,  does  he  difcover 
any  defign  in  the  minifter  to  keep  him  in  ig- 
norance of  his  Creator  ?  Arc  not  the  public 
prayers  in  which  he  joins,  the  JeHbns  which 
are  read  to  him,  the  icrmons  are 

preached  to  him,  all  calculate:!  to  imprcfs  up- 
on his  mind  a  ftroug  conviction  of  the  mer- 
cy, juflice,  holineis,  power,  i»rd  wifdotn  of 
the  one  adorable  God,  blefTcd  for  ever  !  By 
thefe  means  which  the  Chriftian  church  hath 
provided  for  oar  inftru&Son,  I  v>  ill  venture 
to  fay,  that  the  rnoft  unlearned  congregati- 
on of  Chriftians  in  Great  Britain  have  more 
juft  and  iuhliuie  conceptions  of  the  Creator, 
a  more  perfeft  knowledge  of  their  duty  to- 
wards him,  and  a  ftrong-.-r  inducement  to  the 
practice  of  virtue,  hoHueis,  and  temperance, 
than  all  the  philosophers  of  all  the  heathen 
countries  In  the  world  ever  ha.!,  or  now 
have.  If,  indeed,  your  fchcinc  {hould  tak© 


place,  and  men  fhould  no  longer  believe  their 
Bible,  then  would  they  foon  become  as  igno- 
rant of  the  Creator,  as  all  the  world  was  when 
God  called  Abraham  from  his  kindred  ;  and 
as  all  the  wrorld,  which  has  had  no  communi- 
cation with  eitherjews  orChriftians,  now  is. 
Then  would  they  loon  bow  down  to  (locks 
and  (tones,  kifs  their  hand  (as  they  did  in  the 
time  of  Job,  and  as  the  poor  African  does 
now,)  to  the  moon  walking  in  brightnejs,  and 
deny  the  God  that  is  above;  then  would  they 
worfhip  Jupiter,  Bacchus,  and  Venus,  and 
emulate,  in  the  tranfcendent  flagitioufnefs  of 
their  lives,  the  impure  morals  of  their  gods. 

What  defign  has  government  to  keep 
men  in  ignorance  of  their  rights  ?  None  vs  hat- 
ever. — All  wife  ftatefmen  are  perfuaded,  that 
the  more  men  know  of  their  rights,  the  bet- 
ter fubjefts  they  will  become.  Subjects, mot 
from  neceflity  but  choice,  are  the  firmed 
friends  of  every  government.  The  people 
of  Great  Britain  are  well  acquainted  with 
their  natural  and  (bcial  lights  ;  they  under- 
ftand  them  better  than  the  people  of  any 
other  country  do  ;  they  know  that  they  have 
a  right  to  be  free,  not  only  from  the  capri- 
cious tyranny  of  any  one  man's  will,  but 
from  the  more  afflicting  defpot'fm  o?  repub- 
lican factions  ;  and  it  is  this  very  knowledge 
-which  attaches  them  to  the  coiUtitution  of 
their  country.  I  have  no  fear  that  the  pco- 


pie  fliould  know  too  much  of  their  rights  ; 
my  fear  is  that  they  fhould  not  know  them 
in  all  their  relations,  and  to  their  full  extent. 
The  government  does  not  defire  that  men 
fliouid  remain  in  ignorance  of  their  rights  ; 
but  it  both  defires,  and  requires,  that  they 
fhould  not  difturb  the  public  peace,  under 
vain  pretences  ;  that  they  fhould  make  them- 
fclves  acquainted,  not  merely  with  the  rights 
but  with  the  duties  alfo  of  men  in  civil  foci- 
ety.  I  am  far  from  ridiculing  (as  fome  have 
done)  the  rights  of  man  ;  I  have  long  ago 
underflood,  that  the  poor  as  well  as  the  rich 
and  that  the  rich  as  well  as  the  poor,  have, 
by  nature  fome  rights,  which  no  human  go- 
vernment can  juflly  take  from  them,  with- 
out their  tacit  or  exprefs  content ;  and  fome 
alfo,  which  they  themfelves  have  no  power 
to  furrender  to  any  government.  One  of 
the  principal  rights  of  man,  in  a  flate  either 
of  nature  or  of  fociety,  is  a  right  of  property 
in  the  fruits  of  his  induflry,  ingenuity t  or 
good  fortunes.- — Does  government  hold  any 
man  in  ignorance  of  this  right?  So  much  the 
contrary,  that  the  chief  care  of  government 
is  to  declare,  afcertain,  modify,  and  defend 
this  right  ;  nay,  it  gives  right  where  nature 
gives  none  ;  it  protects  the  goods  c;f  ar?  intef- 
tate  ;  and  it  allows  a  man,  at  his  death,  to 
clifpofe  of  that  property,  which  the  law  of 
nature  would  caufe  to  revert  into  the  com- 
mon flock.  Sincerely  as  I  am  attached  to 


I92 

the  liberties  of  mankind,  I  cannot  but  profefs 
myfelf  an  utter  enemy  to  that  fpurious  phi- 
lofophy,  that  democratic  infanity,  which 
would  equalise  al!  property,  and  level  all  dif- 
tinftions  in  civilf6ciety.  Perfonaldiftinftions, 
arifing  from  fuperior  probity,  learning,  elo- 
quence, (kill,  courage,  and  from  every  other 
excellency  of  talents,  are  the  very  blood 
and  nerves  of  the  body  politic  ;  they  ani- 
mate the  whole,  and  invigorate  every  part; 
without  them,  its  bones  would  become  reeds, 
and  its  marrow  water ;  it  would  prefently 
fink  into  a  fetid  fenielefs  mafs  of  corrup- 
tion.— Power  may  be  ufed  for  private  ends, 
and  in  oppofition  to  the  public  good ;  rank, 
may  be  improperly  conferred,  and  infolently 
fuftained  ;  riches  may  be  wickedly  acquired, 
and  vicioufly  applied  ;  but  as  this  is  neither 
neceflarily,  nor  generally  the  cafe,  I  cannot 
agree  with  thofe  who  in  aflerting  the  natu- 
ral equality  of  men,  fpurn  the  inllituted  dif- 
tinftions  attending;  power,  rank,  and  riches. 
— But  I  mean  not  to  enter  into  any  difcuffi- 
on  on  this  fubjeft,  farther  than  to  fay^  that 
your  crimination  of  government  appears  to 
me  to  be  wholly  unfolded  ;  and  to  exprefs  my 
hope  that  no  one  individual  will  be  fo  far 
milled  by  difquifitions  on  the  rights  of  man, 
as  to  think  that  he  has  any  right  to  do  wrong, 
as  to  forget  that  other  men  have  rights  as 
well  as  he. 


You  are  animated  with  proper  fentmients 
of  piety,  when  you  {peak  of  the  ftrufture  of 
the  univerfe.  No  one,  indeed,  who  conli- 
cl^rs  it  with  attention  can  fail  of  having  his 
mind  filled  with  the  fuprerneft  veneration 
for  its  Author.  Who  can  contemplate, 
without  aflonifhment,  the  motion  of  a  comet 
running  far  beyond  the  orb  of  Saturn,  en- 
deavouring to  efcapeinto  the  pathlefs  regions 
of  unbounded  (pace,  yet  feeling,  at  its  utmoft 
diftance,  the  attractive  influence  of  the  fun, 
hearing,  as  it  were,  the  voice  of  God  arref- 

'  ting  its  progrefs,  and  compelling  it,  after  a 
lapfe  of  ages,  to  reiterate  its  ancient  courie  ? 
— Who  can  comprehend  the  diftance  of  the 
ftars  from  the  earth,  nnd  from  each  other  ? — 

'  It  is  fo  great,  that  it  mocks  our  conception; 
•our  very  imaginatiqn  is  terrified,  confounded 
and  loft,  when  we  are  told,  that  a  ray  of  light 
which  moves  at  the  rate  of  above  ten  millions 
of  miles  in  a  minute,  will  not,  though  emit- 
ted at  this  inftant  from  the  brighteft  ftar 
reach  the  earth  in  lefs  than  fix  years. — We 
think  this  earth  a  great  globe  ;  and  we  fee  the 
fad  wickednefs,  which  individuals  are  often 
guilty  of,  in  (craping  together  a  little  of  its 
dirt  :  we  view,  with  flill  greater  aftonifh- 
ment  and  horror,  the  mighty  ruin  which  has 
in  ail  ages,  been  brought  upon  human  kind, 
by  the  low  ambition  of  contending  powers, 
to  acquire  a  temporary  poflTeffion  of  a  little 
portion  of  its  furfece.  But  how  does  the 

Pv 


whole  of  this  globe  fink,  as"  it  were 
thing,  when  we  coniider  that  a  million  of 
earths  will  fcarcely  equal  the  bulk  of  the  fan  ; 
that  all  the  Mars  are  funs  ;  and  that  millions 
of  funs  conflitute,  probably,  but  a  minute 
portion  of  that  material  world,  which  God 
hath  distributed  through  the  immenfity  of 
{pace  f> — Syftems,  however,  of  infenlible 
matter,  though  arranged  in  exquiute  order, 
prove  only  the  wifdom  and  the  power  of  the 
great  Architect  of  nature. — As  percipient  be- 
ings, we  look  for  fomething  more — for  his 
goodneis — -and  we  cannot  open  our  eyes 
without  feeing  it. 

EVERY  portion  of  the  earth,  fea,  and  air, 
Is  full  of  fenfitive  beings,  capable,  in  their 
refpcftive  orders,  of  enjpying  the  good  things 
which  God  has  prepared  for  their  comfort. 
.All  the  orders  of  beings  are  enabled  to  propa- 
gate their  kind  ;  and  thus  proviiion  is  made 
for  a  fucceilive  continuation  of  happinefs. 
Individuals  yield  to  the  law  of diffolution  in- 
feparable  from  the  material  ftrnfttire  of  their 
bodies  :  but  no  gap  is  thereby  left  in  exigence; 
their  place  is  occupied  by  other  individuals 
capable  of  participating  in  the  goodneis  of  the 
Almighty.  Contemplations  inch  as  thefe, 
fill  the  miacl  with  humility,  benevolence, 
andpietv.  But  why  mould  we  ftop  here? 
•\vhy  not  contemplate  the  goodnefs  of  God 
*n  the  redemption,  as  well  as  in  the  creation 


of  the'  world  ?  By  the  death  of  his  only -be- 
gotten Son  Jefus  Chrift,  he  hath  redeemed 
the  whole  human  race  from  the  eternal  death, 
which  the  tranfgreffion  of  Adam  had  entail- 
ed on  all  his  pofterity. — You  believe  nothing 
about  the  tranfgreffion  of  Adam.  The  hii- 
tory  of  Eve  and  the  ferpent  excites  your  con- 
tempt ;  you  will  not  admit  that  it  is  either  a 
real  hiftory,  or  an  allegorical  reprefentation 
of  death  entering  into  the  world  through 
fin,  through  difobedience  to  the  command  of 
God. — Be  it  fo  . — You  find,  however,  that 
death  doth  reign  over  all  mankind,  by  what- 
ever means  it  was  introduced  :  this  is  not  a 
matter  of  belief,  but  of  lamentable  knowledge. 
—The  New  Teftament  tells  us,  that,  through 
tl/e  merciful  difpenfation  of  God,  Chrift  hath 
overcome  death,  and  reftored  man  to  that 
immortality  which  Adam  had  loft  :— this 
alfo  you  refufe  to  believe. — Why  ?  Becaufe 
you  cannot  account  for  the  propriety  of  this 
redemption. — Miferable  reaibn  !  ftupid  ob- 
je&ion  !  What  is  there  that  you  can  account 
for?  Not  for  the  germination  of  a  blade  of 
grafs,  not  for  the  fall  of  a  leaf  of  the  foreft — 
and  will  you  refufe  to  eat  of  the  fruits  of  the 
earth,  becauie  God  has  not  given  you  wiiclotn 
equal  to  his  own  ?  Will  you  refufe  to  lay 
hold  on  immortality,  becauie  he  has  not  gi- 
ven you,  becauie  he,  probably,  could  not  give 
to  fuch  a  being  as  man,  a  full  manifeftation  of 
the  end  for  which  he  defigns  him,  nor  of  the 


means  requifite  for  the  attainment  of  that 
end  ?  What  father  of  a  family  can  make  level 
to  the  apprehenfion  of  his  infant  children,  all 
the.  views  of  happinefs  which  his  paternal 
goodnefs  is  preparing  for  them  ?  How  can  he 
explain  to  them  the  utility  of  reproof,  cor- 
re£tion,  inftru&ion,  example,  of  all  the  vari- 
ous means  by  which  he  forms  their  minds  to 
piety,  temperance,  and  probity  ?  We  are 
children  in  the  hand  of  God  ;  we  are  in  the 
very  infancy  of  our  exiftence  ;  juft  feparated 
from  the  womb  of  eternal  duration;  it  may 
not  be  poffiblefor  the  Father  of  the  univerfe 
to  explain  to  us  (infants  in  apprehenfion  !) 
the  goodnefs  and  the  wifdom  of  his  dealings 
with  the  fons  of  men.  What  qualities  of 
mind  will  be  neceffary  for  our  well-doing 
through  all  eternity,  we  know  not;  what 
discipline  in  this  infancy  of  exiftence  may  be 
neceffary  for  generating  thefe  qualities,  we 
know  not;  whether  God  could  or  could  not, 
conflftently  with  the  general  good,  have  for- 
given the  tranfgreffion  of  Adam,  without  any 
atonement,  we  know  not;  whether  the  ma- 
lignity of  fin  be  not  fo  great,  fo  oppofite  to 
the  general  good,  that  it  cannot  be  forgiven 
w hi  1ft  it  exifts,  that  is,  whilft  the  mind  re- 
tains a  propenfity  to  it,  we  know  not  :  fo 
that  if  there  fliould  be  much  greater  difficul- 
ty in  comprehending  the  mode  of  God's  mo- 
ral government  of  mankind  than  there  real- 
ly is,  there  would  be  no  reafon  for  doubting 


197 

of  its  re&itnde.  If  the  whole  human  race 
be  confidereci  as  but  one  fmall  member  of  a 
large  community  of  free  and  intelligent  be- 
ings of  different  orders,  and  if  this  whole*com- 
munity  be  fubjeft  todifcipline  and  laws  pro- 
dncflive  of  the  grcateft  poffible  good  to  the 
whole  fyftcm,  then  may  we  ftill  more  reafon- 
ably  fufpeft  our  capacity  to  comprehend  the 
wifdorn  and  goodnefs  of  God's  proceedings  in 
the  moral  government  of  the  univerfe. 

You  are  lavifli  in  your  praife  of  deifm  ;  it 
is  fo  much  better  than  atheifm,  that  I  mean 
nor  to  fay  any  thing  to  its  clifcreclit  ;  it  is 
not,  however,  without  its  difficulties.  What 
think  you  of  an  uncaufed  caufe  of  every 
thing  ?  of  a  Being  who  has  no  relation  to  time, 
not  being  older  to-day  than  he  was  yeflerday, 
nor  younger  to-day  than  he  will  be  to-mor- 
row ?  who  has  no  relation  to  fpace,  not  being 
a  part  here  and  a  part  there,  or  a  whole  any 
where  ?  What  think  you  of  an  omnifcient 
Being,  who  cannot  know  the  future  aftions 
of  a  man  ?  Or,  if  his  omnifcience  enables  him 
to  know  them,  what  think  you  of  the  contin- 
gency of  human  aftions  ?  And  if  human 
actions  are  not  contingent,  what  think  you 
of  the  morality  of  actions,  of  the  diflin&ion 
between  vice  and  virtue,  crime  and  innocence, 
fin  and  duty  ?  What  think  you  of  the  infinite 
goodnefs  of  a  Being,  who  exifted  through 
eternity,  without  any  emanation  of  his  good- 
R  2 


nefs  manifefced  in  the  creation  of  fenfitive  be- 
ings ?  Or,  if  you  contend  that  there  has  been 
an  eternal  creation,  what  think  you  of  an  ef- 
feft  co?val  with  its  caufe,  of  matter  not  pof- 
terior  to  its  Maker?  What  think  you  of  the 
cxiftence  of  evil,  moral 'and  natural,  in  the 
work  of  an  infinite  Being,  powerful,  wife, 
and  good  ?  What  think  you  of  the  gift  of 
freedom  of  will,  when  the  abufe  of  freedom 
becomes  the  caufe  of  general  mifery  ?  I  could 
propofe  to  your  confideration  a  great  many 
other  queftions  of  a  fimilar  tendency,  the 
contemplation  of  which  has  driven  not  a  few 
fromdeifm  to  atheilm,  juft  as  the  difficulties 
in  revealed  religion  have  driven  yourfelf,  and 
ibr:e  others,  from  chriilianity  to  cleifm. 

FOR  my  own  part,  1  can  fee  no  reafon  why 
either  revealed  or  natural  religion  fhould  be 
abandoned,  on  account  of  the  difficulties 
which  attend  either  of  them.  I  look  up  to 
the  incornprehenfible  Maker  of  heaven  and 
earth  with  r.nfpeakable  admiration  and  felf- 
annihilation,  and  am  adeifl.— I  contemplate 
with  the  utmoft  gratitude  and  humility  of 
mind,  his  unfearchable  wifdom  andgoodnefs 
in  the  redemption  of  the  world  from  eternal 
death,  through  the  intervention  of  his  Son 
Jefus  Chrift,  and  am  aChriftian. — As  a  deift 
I  have  little  expectation  ;  as  a  Chriftian,  I 
have  no  doubt  of  a  future  ftate.  I  fpeak  for 
ipyfelf,  and  may  ba  in  an  error,  as  to  the 


199 

ground  of  thefirft  part  of  this  opinion.  You, 
and  other  men,  may  conclude  differently. 
From  the  inert  nature  of  matter — from  the 
faculties  of  the  human  mind — from  the  ap- 
parent imperfection  of  God's  moral  govern- 
ment of  the  world — from  many  modes  of 
analogical  reafoning,  and  from  other  fources, 
fome  of  the  philofophers  of  antiquity  did  col- 
left,  and  modern  philofophers  may,  perhaps, 
collect  a  ftrong  probability  of  a  future  exilt- 
ence  ;  and  not  only  of  a  future  cxiftence,  but 
(which  is  quite  a  ciiftinft  queftion)  of  a  fu- 
ture ftate  of  retribution,  proportioned  to  our 
moral  condudt  in  this  world.  Far  be  it  from 
me  to  loofen  any  of  the  obligations  to  vir- 
tue ;  but  I  mufl  confefs,  that  I  cannot,  from 
the  fame  fources  of  argumentation,  derive 
any  pofitive  affurance  on  the  fubject.  Think 
then  with  what  thankfulnefs  of  heart  I  re- 
ceive the  word  of  God,  which  tells  me,  that 
though  •*  in  Adam  (by  the  condition  of  our 
nature)  all  die  ;"  yet  "  in  Chrift  (by  the  co- 
venant of  grace)  (hall  all  be  made  alive."  I 
lay  hold  on  u  eternal  life  as  the  gift  of  God 
through  Jefus  Chrift;"  Iconfider  it  not  as  any 
appendage  to  the  nature  I  derive  from  Adam, 
but  as  the  free  gift  of  the  Almighty,  through 
his  Son,  whom  he  hath  conftituted  Lord  of 
all,  the  Saviour,  the  Advocate,  andthejudge 
of  human  kind. 

"  DEISM,"  you  affirm,  "  teaches  us,  with- 
out the  poffibility  of  being  miftaken,  all  that 


aoo 

is  neceflary  or  proper  to  be  known."  There 
are  three  things,   which  all  reafonable  men 
admit  are  neceflary  and  proper  to  be  known 
— the  being  of  Gcd — the  providence  of  God 
— a  future  ftatc  of   retribution. — Whether 
thefe   three  truths  are  fo  taught  us  by  deifm, 
that  there  is  no  poffibility  of  being  miftaken 
concerning  any   of  them,    let  the  hiflory  of 
philofbphy,  and  of  idolatry,  and  fupcrftition, 
in  all  ages  and  countries, determine.    A  volume 
might  be  filled  withanacconnt  of  the  miftakes 
into  which  the  greateft  reafoners  have  fallen, 
and  of  the  uncertainty  in  which  they  lived, 
withrefpect  toeveryoneof  thefe  points.  I  will 
advert,  briefly,  only  to  the  laft  of  them.  Not- 
withftanding  the  illuftrious  labours  of  Gaf- 
jendi,  Cudworth,  Clarke,  Baxter,  and  of  above 
two  hundred  other  modern  writers  on  the 
fubject,  the  natural  mortality  or  immortality 
of  the  human  foul  is  as  little  underftood  by 
us,  as  it  was  by  the  philofophers  of  Greece 
or  Rome.     The   oppofite  opinions  of  Plato 
and  of  Epicurus   on  this  fubjecl,    have  their 
leveralfupporters  arnongft  the  learned  of  the 
prefent   age,    in    Great   Britain,    Germany, 
France,  Italy,  in  every   enlightened  part  of 
the  world  ;  and  they  who  have  been  mofh  fe- 
ripufly  occupied  in  the  ftudy  of  the  queftion, 
concerning  a  future  (late,    as  deducible  from 
the  nature  of  the  human  foul,   are   lead  dif- 
pofed  to  give  from  reafon  a  pofitive  decifion 
of  it  either  way.     The  importance  of  reve- 
lation is  by  nothing  rendered  rmre  apparent 


than  by  the  difcordant  fentiments  of  learned 
and  good  men  (for  I  fpeak  not  of  the  ignorant 
and  immoral)  on  this  point.  They  fhew  the 
infiifficiency  of  human  reafon,  in  a  courfe  of 
above  two  thoufand  years,  to  unfold  the  myf- 
teries  of  human  nature,  and  to  furnifh,  froiti 
the  contemplation  of  it,  any  affurancs  of  the 
quality  of  our  future  condition.  If  you  fh  on  Id 
ever  become  perfuaded  of  this  infufficiency, 
(and  you  can  fcarce  fail  of  becoming  fo,  if 
you  examine  the  matter  deeply),  you  will, 
if  you  aft  rationally,  be  difpofed  to  invefti- 
gate,  with  ferioufnefs  and  impartiality,  the 
truth  of  Chriftianity.  You  will  fay  of  the 
gofpel,  as  the  Northumbrian  heathens  faid  of 
Paulinus,  by  whom  they  were  converted  to 
the  Chriftian  religion — "  The  more  we  re- 
fled:  on  the  nature  of  our  foul,  the  lefs  we 
know  of  it.  While  it  animatesou^body,  we 
may  know  fome  of  its  properties;  but  when 
once  feparated,  we  know  not  whither  it  goes, 
or  from  whence  it  came.  Since,  then,  the 
gofpel  pretends  to  give  us  clearer  notions  of 
thefe  matters,  we  ought  to  hear  it,  and  laying 
afide  all  paffion  and  prejudice,  follow  that 
which  fhall  appear  moft  conformable  to  right 
reafon." 

What  a  bleding  is  it  to  beings,  with  fuch 
limited  capacities  as  ours  confefledly  are,  to 
have  God  himfelf  for  our  inflruftor  in  every 
thing  which  it  much  concerns  us  to  know  I 


We  are  principally  concerned  in 
not  the  origin  of  arts,* -or 'the  recondite 
depths  of  fcience— -  not  the  hiftories  of  migh- 
ty empires;  defdlating  the  globe  by  their  con- 
ten  tions--not  thefubtilties  of  logic,  the  myf- 
teries  of  rrietaphyfics,  the  fublimities  of  po- 
etry, or  the  niceties  of  criticifm. — Thelet 
and  fnbjefts  fuch  as  thefe,  properly  occupy 
the  learned  leifure  of  a  few';  but  the  bulk  of 
human  kind  have  ever  been,  and^muft  ever 
remain,  ignorant  of  them  all;  they  muft, 
of  neceffity,  remain  in  the  fame  ftate  with 
that  which  a  German  emperor  voluntarily 
put  himfeif  into,  when  he  made  a  refolution, 
bordering  on  barbarifm,  that  he  would  n£- 
ver  read  a  printed  book.  We  are  all,  of  eve- 
ry rank  and  condition,  equally  concerned  in 
knowing— what  will  become  of  us  after 
death  ; — $nd,  if  we  are  to  live  again,  we 
are  intereftedin  knowing. — whether  it  be  pof- 
fible  for  us  to  do  any  thing  whilfl  we  live 
here,  which  may  render  that  future  life  an 
happy  one.— Now,  "  that  thing  called  chrif- 
tiaaity,"  as  you  fcoffingly  fpeak — that  lad 
beft  gift  of  Almighty  God,  as  I  eftecm  it,  the 
gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift,  has  given  us  the  moft 
clear  and  fatisfaftory  information  on  both 
thefe  points.  It  tells  us,  what  deiiin  never 
could  have  told  us,  that  we  fhall  certainly  be 
railed  from  the  dead — that,  whatever  be  the 
nature  of  the  foul,  we  fhall  certainly  live 
for  ever~r-and  that,  \vhilft  we  live  here,  it  is 


205 

poiiible  for  us  to  do  much  towards  the  ren- 
dering that  everlafting  life  an  happy  one. — 
Thefe  are  tremendous  truths  to  bad  men ;  they 
-cannot  be  receivedand  rcfk^tcclon  with  indif- 
ference by  the  beft;  and  they  iiigge.fi:  to  all  inch 
a  cogent  motive  to  virtuous  actions,  as  de- 
ifra  could  not  furinih  even  to  Brunts  himfelf. 

SOME  men  have  been  warped  to  infidelity 
by  viciouf iiefs  of  life  ;  and  feme  have  hypo- 
critically profeiibd.chriftiamty  from  profpecls 
of  temporal  advantage  :  but,  being  a  flranger 
to  your  character,  I  neither  impute  the  for- 
mer to  you,  nor  can  admit  the  latter  as  ope- 
rating on  rnylcif.  The  generality  of  unbe- 
lievers are  fuch,  from  want  of .  information 
lie  fubject  of  religion  ;  having  been  en- 
:!  from  their  youth  in  ftruggling  for 
lly  difuncnon,  or  perplexed  with  the 
inceli Vat  intricacies  of  bufincls,  or  bewildered 
In  t'r:  rrarfuits  of  pleafure,  they  have  neither 
ability,  inclination,  nor  leifnre,  to  enter  into 
critical  difquifitipns  concerning  the  truth  of 
.chrillianity.  Men  of  this  defcription  are 
foo.n  forded  by  obje£tio«s  vrhich  they  are  not 
ccmpete.nt  to  anfvver ;  and  the  loofe  morality 
of  the,age,.(io  oppo/ite  to  chriman  perfec- 
,tion!)  co-operating  witl;  thrir  want  of  fcrip- 
tural  knowledge,  they  prefently  get  rid  of 
their  nurfery  faith,  and  arc  ieklom  (eduious 
in  the  acquilition  of  another,  founded,  not  on 
authority,  but  fober  iaveftigation.  Prcfuta- 


204 

ing,  however,  that  many  cleifls  are  as  fin  cere 
in  their  belief  as  I  am  in  mine,  and  knowing 
that  feme  are  more  able,  and  all  as  much  in- 
tereilcd  as  myfelf,  to  make  a  rational  inqui- 
ry into  the  truth  of  revealed  religion,  I  feel 
no  propenfity  to  judge  uncharitably  of  any 
of  them.  They  do  not  think  as  I  do,  on  a 
{object  lurpaffing  all  others  in  importance; 
but  they  are  not,  on  that  account,  to  be  fpo- 
ken  of  by  me  with  aiperit)7"  of  language,  to 
be  thought  of  by  me  as  parlous  alienated  from 
the  mercies  of  Gocl.  The  gofpel  has  been 
offered  to  their  acceptance;  and,  from  what- 
ever caufe  they  reject  it,  I  cannot  but  efteem 
their  fitnation  to  be  dangerous.  Under  the 
.  influence  of  that  perfuaficn  I  have  been  indu- 
ced to  write  this  book.  I  do  not  expecTt  to 
derive  from  it  either  fame  or  profit ,  thefe  are 
not  improper  incentives  to  honorable  adtivi- 
ty  ;  but  there  is  a  time  of  life  when  they 
ceafe  to  direct  the  judgment  of  thinking  men. 
What  I  have  written,  will  not,  I  fear,  make 
any  impreffion  on  you;  but  I  indulge  an  hope, 
that  it  may  not  be  without  its  effedt  on  forne 
of  your  readers.  Infidelity  is  a  rank  weed, 
it  threatens  to  overfpread  the  land  ;  its  root 
is  principally  fixed  amongft  the  great  and 
opulent ;  but  you  are  endeavouring  to  extend 
the  malignity  of  its  poifon  through  all  the 
clafles  of  the  coin  in  unity.  There  is  a  dais 
of  men,  for  whom  1  have  the  greateft  refpeft, 
and  whom  I  am  anxious  to  prefcrve  from  the 


i 


205 

contamination  of  your  irreligion — rthe  mer- 
chants, manufacturers,  and  tradesmen  of  the 
kingdom.  1  confider  the  influence  of  the  ex- 
ample of  this  clafs  as  efTential  to  the  welfare 
of  the  community.  I  know  that  they  are 
in  general  given  to  reading,  and  defircus  oi 
information  on  all Tubjefts.  If  this  little  book 
fhould  chance  to  fall  into  their  hands  after 
they  have  read  yours,  and  they  fliould  think 
that  any  of  your  obje<Tcions  to  the  authority 
of  the  Bible  have  not  been  fully  anfvvered,  I 
intreat  them  to  attribute  the  omiilion  to  the 
brevity  which  I  have  ftudied  ;  to  my  defire 
of  avoiding  learned  difquifitions  ;  to  my  inad- 
vertency; to  my  inability;  to  any  thing  ra- 
ther than  an  impoffibility  of  completely  ob- 
viating every  difficulty  you  have  brought 
forward.  I  addrefs  the  fame  requefl  to  fucli 
of  the  youth  of  both  fexes,  as  may  unhappily 
have  imbibed,  from  your  .writings,  the  poi- 
fon  of  infidelity  ;  befeeching  them  to  believe, 
that  all  their  religious  doubts  may  be  remo- 
ved, though  it  may  not  have  been  in  my 
power  to  anfwer, to  their  fatisfa&ion,  all  your 
objections.  '  I  pray  God  that  the  rifing  gene- 
ration of  this  land  may  be  preferred  from 
that  "  evil  heart  of  unbelief,"  which  has 
brought  ruin  on  a  neighbouring  nation ;  that 
neither  a  neglefted  education,  nor  domeftic 
irreligion,  nor  evil  communication,  nor  the 
fafhion  of  a  licentious  world,  may  ever  induce 
S 


2.0  fc., 

them  to  forget  that  religion  alone  ought  to 
be  their  rule  of  life. 

IK  the  conclufion  of  my  Apology  for  Chrij- 
tianity,  I  informed  Mr.  Gibbon  of  my  extreme 
:averiion  to  public  controvcrfy.  I  am  now 
twenty  years  older  than  I  was  then,  and  I 
perceive  that  this  my  averfion  has  increafed 
with  my  age.  I  have,  through  life,  abandon* 
ed  my  little  literary  produ£tions  to  their  fate  : 
fuch  of  them  as  have  been  attacked,  have  ne- 
ver received  any  defence  from  me  ;  nor  will 
this  receive  any,  if  it  fliould  meet  with  your 
public  notice.,  or  with  that  of  any  other  man. 

SINCERELY  wifning  that  you  may  become 
a  partaker  of  that  faith  in  revealed  religion, 
•which  is  the  foundation  of  my  happinefs  in 
this  world,  and  of  all  my  hopes  in  another, 
I  bid  you  farewell. 

Pv.  LANDAFF. 
CALGARTH  PARK, 
Jan.  20,  1796. 


